Ing v. Evanson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 25254 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I JAMES DOUGLAS KEAUHOU ING, ROBERT KALANI UICHI KIHUNE, CONSTANCE HEE LAU, DIANE JOYCE PLOTTS, and CHARLES NAINOA THOMPSON, in their capacities as Trustees of Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate, Plaintiffs-Appellants vs. MARGARET WEST EVANSON aka Margaret West Mahoney, JAMES FERGUSON SMALL, JAMES RADFORD SMALL, SARAH KAREN YORE, also known as Karen S. Yore, Individually and as Trustee under that certain Declaration of Trust of Karen S. Yore Trust, dated November 15, 1986; DENNIS WEST MAHONEY and FREDERICK WILLIAM MAHONEY, JR., CoTrustees under that certain Revocable Trust of Margaret West Mahoney dated August 17, 1978, and FREDERICK WILLIAM MAHONEY, JR., and DENNIS WEST MAHONEY, Co-Trustees under that certain Irrevocable Trust of Margaret West Mahoney dated December 29, 1982, Defendants-Appellees and JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-50, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50, DOE ENTITIES 1-50, and DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-50, Defendants and JAMES RADFORD SMALL; SARAH KAREN YORE; AND FREDERICK WILLIAM MAHONEY, JR. AND DENNIS WEST MAHONEY, Co-Trustees of the Irrevocable Trust of Margaret West Mahoney dated December 29, 1982, Counterclaimants vs. JAMES DOUGLAS KEAUHOU ING, ROBERT KALANI UICHI KIHUNE, CONSTANCE HEE LAU, DIANE JOYCE PLOTTS, and CHARLES NAINOA THOMPSON, in their capacities as Trustees of Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate, Counterclaim Defendants APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 00-1-3758) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that we do not have appellate jurisdiction over Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants/Appellants James Douglas Keauhou Ing, Robert Kalani Uichi Kihune, Constance Hee Lau, Diane Joyce Plotts, and Charles Nainoa Thompson s interlocutory appeal from the July 12, 2002 Order Regarding Retention of Jurisdiction by Court in Light of Appeal entered by the Honorable Richard W. Pollack. As a general rule, HRS § 641-1(a) (1993) authorizes appeals only from final judgments, orders, or decrees[.] Final order means an order ending the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be accomplished. Familian Northwest, Inc. v. Central Pacific Boiler & Piping, Ltd., 68 Haw. 368, 370, 714 P.2d 936, 937 (1986) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2002 order did not end the proceedings. The July 12, Furthermore, the July 12, 2002 order does not satisfy all three requirements for appealability under the collateral order doctrine. Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai#i 319, 322, 966 P.2d 631, 634 (1998). Therefore, the July 12, 2002 order is not an appealable final order pursuant to HRS § 641-1(a) (1993), and this appeal is premature. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 19, 2002. 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.
