Tamashiro v. Department of Human Services, State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 23843 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 NISHIMURA, 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 (CIV. NO. 96-3011) ----------------------------------------------------------------CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Appellant vs. SUSAN CHANDLER, in her capacity as Director of the Department of Human Services State of Hawai#i; and DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Appellees (CIV. NO. 97-2826) ----------------------------------------------------------------COUNTY OF HAWAI#I, Appellant vs. SUSAN CHANDLER, in her capacity as Director of the Department of Human Services State of Hawai#i; and DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SEVICES, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Appellees (CIV. NO. 97-342 (Hilo)) APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NOS. 96-3011, 97-2826, & 97-342 (Hilo)) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that: (1) the September 27, 2000 judgment, which enters judgment on the claims against the state defendants, does not show finality as to all claims asserted in Civil No. 96-3011 inasmuch as it does not dismiss or enter judgment on the claims against defendant City and County of Honolulu, as required by HRCP 58; see Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119-20, 869 P.2d 1334, 1339-39 (1994) (In a multiple party circuit court case, a judgment that purports to be the final judgment is not appealable unless the judgment, on its face, shows finality as to all claims against all the parties.); and, thus, (2) this appeal is premature and we lack jurisdiction. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 31, 2001.
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.
