Tamashiro v. Department of Human Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 24552 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________ MYLES TAMASHIRO, WARREN TOYAMA, HEATHER FARMER, FILO TU, JEANETTE TU, LYNN MISAKI, CLYDE OTA, MIRIAM ONOMURA, and YOSHIKO NISHIHARA, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants vs. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAI#I; JON L. KOKI, in his capacity as Business Manager for Ho#Opono, NEIL SHIM, in his capacity of Administrator of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, State of Hawai#i, Department of Human Services; DAVE EVELAND, in his capacity of Administrator of the Services to the Blind Branch of the State of Hawai#i, Department of Human Services; and SUSAN CHANDLER, in her capacity as Director of the State of Hawai#i, Department of Human Services, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees and CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendant-Appellee _________________________________________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 96-3011) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ., and Circuit Judge Nakea, in place of Levinson, J., recused ) Upon examination of Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee State of Hawai#i Department of Human Services (Appellant DHS) October 15, 2002 motion for reconsideration of our October 11, 2002 order striking Appellant DHS s cross-appeal answering brief, striking the case from the ready calendar, and requiring rebriefing, we note that Appellant DHS failed to support its motion for reconsideration with a declaration of counsel to the effect that the motion was presented in good faith and not for purposes of delay, as Rule 40(b) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure required. Furthermore, we conclude that Appellant DHS s motion for reconsideration lacks merit. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant DHS s October 15, 2002 motion for reconsideration is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 25, 2002. Dorothy Sellers, Deputy Attorney General, for defendants-appellants/ cross-appellees on the motion Evan R. Shirley, Stanley E. Levin and Anne Williams for plaintiffs-appellees/ cross-appellants on the response -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
