Obtaining an Award of Summary Judgment in Hawaii

In certain cases, clients can predominate in a lawsuit by filing a Movement for Summary Judgment. Under Rule 56(c) of the Aloha State Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgement is appropriate when there is no echt issue as to any stuff fact and the moving political party is entitled to judgement as a substance of law. Summary judgement can be defeated if a political party shows that a echt and stuff issue of fact is in dispute. State v. Midkiff, 49 Haw. 456, 421 P.2d 550 (1966).

[S]ummary judgement is only appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, replies to interrogatories, and admittances on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no echt issue as to any stuff fact and that the moving political party is entitled to a judgement as a substance of law. See Aloha State Rules of Civil Procedure ( HRCP) Rule 56(c) (1990). "A fact is stuff if cogent evidence of that fact would have got the consequence of establishing or refuting 1 of the indispensable elements of a cause of action or defence asserted by the parties." Hulsman v. Hemmeter Dev. Corp., 65 Haw. 58, 61, 647 P.2d 713, 716 (1982) (citations omitted). Konno v. County of Hawaii, 85 Hawaii, 61, 70, 937 P.2d 397, 406 (1997) (quoting Dunlea v. Dappen, 83 Aloha State 28, 36, 924 P.2d 196, 204 (1996)).

"The grounds must be viewed in the visible light most advantageous to the non-moving party." State ex rel. Bronster v. Yoshina, 84 Aloha State 179, 186, 932 P.2d 316, 323 (1997) (citing Maguire v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 79 Hawai'i 110, 112, 899 P.2d 393, 395 (1995)). "[W]e must see all of the grounds and the illations drawn therefrom in the visible light most advantageous to [the political party opposing the motion]." Maguire, 79 Aloha State at 112, 899 P.2d at 395 (citation omitted). See also United States Steel Corp., 82 Aloha State at 38-39, 919 P.2d at 300-01.

"The moving political party bears the ultimate load of persuasion. This load always stays with the moving political political political party and necessitates the moving party to convert the tribunal that no echt issue of stuff fact bes and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgement as a substance of law." Pioneer Factory Co., Ltd. v. Dow, 1999 WL 174460, 6 (Haw. 1999). "The moving party's load of cogent evidence is a rigorous one, since the illations to be drawn from the implicit in facts alleged in the relevant stuffs considered by the tribunal in deciding the movement must be viewed in the visible light most advantageous to the non-moving party." Id. astatine 7. "Summary judgement is a drastic remedy. To avoid improperly depriving a political party to a lawsuit of the right to a trial on moot factual issues, summary judgement must be "cautiously invoked." Id. astatine 6.

Although Courts grant summary judgement in lone the strongest cases, for obvious reasons, its an result that lawyers are always trying to achieve.