Case Title: Wong v. Cayetano

Citation: 

Docket Number: 27117am

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'I

 

=--000-

RICHARD SUNG HONG WONG, MARI STONE WONG, and KATHLEEN WONG,
Plaintiffs-Appellants

BENJAMIN CAYETANO, EARL I. ANZAT, MARGERY BRONSTER,
THOMAS R. KELLER, LAWRENCE A. GOYA, CYNTHIA QUINN, HUGH R.

JONES, DOROTHY SELLERS, STEVE GOODENOW, JOHN TSUKIYAMA,
Defendants~Appellees

and

JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants

 

 

 

no. 27017 3
ABPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT =
oly. NO. 02-2411) 8
AUGUST 29, 2006 >
a CORE °
or betty)
the opinion of the court filed on July 26, 2006 is
hereby corrected as follows (deletions are bracketed and
additions ere double underscored):
aiede: OPINION OF THE COURT BY DUFFY, ACHING Cu.
Line § from the bottoa of page 1: In this action for
nelicious prosecution (Defendants) Blaintités-
rn this

 

Line 1 from the top of footnote 4 on page 4

connection, we note that the Cayetano Group requests[,] that we

aad
Lines 4-5 from the top of footnote 4 on page 4:
(noting thet, where the record on appeal does not provide
sufficient information, g court may take judicial notice of the
record in a related case); Roxas v

Line 4 from the botton of page 7: entered @ written
order denying in part (Wong) Bichazd’s motion to dismiss

Line 2 from the bottom of page 12: After the
[Defendants] defendants filed 2 motion to dismiss or for

Line 9 from the bottom of page 13: grant the
(Defendants) defendants’ motion, they be “given leave to file an
amended

Line 4 from the bottom of page 13: damages, holding
that the [Defendants] defendants were entitled to absolute

Line 12 from the bottom of page 17: dismiss on
December 24, 2002, arguing that: (1) the Mongs’ claims

Line 5 from the bottom of page 23: the error was
harmless because ghe judgment below is supported on

Line 13 from the top of page 28: 699 (1989), rev'd on
other arounds by Hac v. Univ. of Hawai'i,

Line 4 from the top of footnote 11 on page 28: for
malicious prosecution. However, the majority of courts appears

to agree
Line @ from the top of footnote 11 on page 28: [that],
based on the “it cannot be revived” language, the Restatement of
Torts

Line 9 from the top of page 40: nevertheless
judicially noticed fact sufficient to meet [the]

‘The Clerk of the Court is directed to incorporate the
foregoing changes in the original opinion and take all necessary

steps to notify the publishing agencies of these changes.

omen £. Duceys Qh

Acting Chief Justice