Robello v. Ford
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 24972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I JOCELYN ROBELLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. RICHARD FORD, CERTIFIED CONSTRUCTION, INC., KEVIN O BRIEN, Defendants-Appellees (CIV. NO. 98-2675) ---------------------------------------------------------------INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RICHARD FORD, CERTIFIED CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendants-Appellees and JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE ROES 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, DOE NON-PROFIT ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants (CIV. NO. 97-3722) APPEAL FROM THE COURT (CIV. NOS. 98-2675 and 97-3722) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that the distribution of proceeds in settlement of Civil Nos. 97-3722 and 98-2675 was reviewable on appeal from the final judgment entered in the actions. HRS § 641-1(a). Entry of the final judgment in Civil Nos. 97-3722 and 98-2675 occurred by entry of the December 27, 2000 stipulated dismissal with prejudice of all claims pursuant to HRCP 41(a)(1)(B). The stipulated dismissal with prejudice does not provide a jurisdictional basis for reviewing the distribution of the settlement proceeds. See 8 Moore s Federal Practice, § 41.34[7][b] (Matthew Bender 3d. ed.) ( A party generally may not appeal from a stipulated dismissal with prejudice because it is not an involuntary adverse judgment. ). Thus, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 23, 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.
