Case Notes

• Publication year: 2014
• Citation: Vol. 18 No. 05

CASE NOTES

Appeal Pointers

An appeal is in default if the opening brief is not filed within 40 days after the record on appeal is filed or within any extension of the 40-day period. Relief from default must be obtained from the appellate court. Failure to cure the default may result in monetary sanctions or dismissal of the appeal. HRAP 28(b) and 30.

Supreme Court

Torts

Costales v. Rosete, No. SGWG-30683, March 17, 2014 (McKenna, J.) (Amended Opinion). In this appeal, a youth correctional officer (YCO) found liable for sexual assault against a ward, sought review of the ICA's judgment on appeal remanding the case for a new trial limited to the issue of allocation of fault and damages, due to an irreconciliable conflict in the jury's special verdict answers. The YGO sought a completely new trial and to preclude judgment against him individually. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the ICA was correct in limiting the issues on retrial to the allocation of fault and damages, but it should have further limited the damages issues to be retried to the measure of general and special damages each defendant should pay. Moreover, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 662-10 did not bar contemporaneous judgments against the State and the YCO in his individual capacity.

Intermediate Court of Appeals

Criminal

State v. Won, No. GAAP-12-0000858, March 28, 2014, (Nakamura, C.J.). Appellant was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his breath test because the police failed to give him Miranda warnings. Appellant also argued that the police violated his statutory right to an attorney, misinformed him of his statutory right to an attorney, and misinformed him of the sanctions for refusing to submit to testing under the provisions of the current statutory scheme. The ICA held that Appellant was not subjected to interrogation for purposes of Miranda and that the police did not violate Appellant's Miranda rights in obtaining his decision on testing.

Labor

Rodrigues v. United Public Workers, AFSCME Local 646, AFL-CIO, March 13, 2014, (Reifurth, J.). The United States District Court, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, determined that Appellant was liable for breach of his fiduciary duties and entered judgment in the amount of $850,000. Appellant requested indemnity from the UPW. The UPW argued that a breaching ERISA fiduciary does not have a...