[DOWNLOAD] "Animal Haven, Inc. v. Hawaiian Humane Society" by Hawaii Supreme Court ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Animal Haven, Inc. v. Hawaiian Humane Society
- Author : Hawaii Supreme Court
- Release Date : January 17, 2000
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
The plaintiff-appellants Animal Haven, Inc., Bonnie Pang, and Norman M.W. Pang (collectively, the Pangs) appeal from the first circuit courts judgment, filed on July 26, 1999, entered in favor of the defendants-appellees Hawaiian Humane Society (HHS), Pamela Burns, Rebecca Rhoades, Michael Burgwin, Susan Kromer, Robert Sylvia, and the City and County of Honolulu (collectively, the defendants). On appeal, the Pangs generally assert that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment as to counts 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10 of their eleven-count complaint, filed on July 28, 1997, because the circuit court wrongly concluded that the two-year statute of limitations applicable to these claims had begun to run on February 7, 1995. With regard to count 2 of their complaint, the Pangs specifically contend that summary judgment on their malicious prosecution claim was improperly granted because the circuit court erroneously concluded that the prior criminal proceedings were initiated upon probable cause. With regard to count 5 of their complaint, the Pangs specifically contend that summary judgment on their conversion claim was improperly granted, inasmuch as their conversion claim is predicated on HHSs taking of the Pangs animals under a release, which the Pangs alleged was coercively obtained, and, therefore, the circuit court was wrong to predicate summary judgment on this claim on the ground that the animals were seized under the authority of a lawfully issued and executed search warrant. With regard to count 9 of their complaint, the Pangs specifically contend that the circuit court erroneously concluded that the allegedly defamatory statements attributable to HHSs employees were not defamatory per se. The Pangs do not contest the circuit courts order granting summary judgment on counts 8 and 11 of their complaint.