TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

BROWN v. Bishop Trust Co.

Alice C. Brown, Gertrude K. Humphries, Lila Kistemaker, Gordon Brown, Wilfred Hayden Humphries, Gertrude Ann Humphries and Clifford Kempton Humphries v. Bishop Trust Company, Ltd., Successor-Trustee of the Sarah Brown Trust

Brown v. Bishop Trust Co., 361 P.2d 1043 (Haw. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Hawaii Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 25, 1961
Docket
No. 4158
Judges
Ouriam, Tsukiyama, Cassidy, Lewis, Wirtz, Marumoto
Citations
361 P.2d 104344 Haw. 6871961 Haw. LEXIS 54

Opinion — Ouriam

Per Ouriam.

Upon consideration of the numerous matters presented by the petition for rehearing, but one point emerges which we deem to merit consideration. It is:

Can judgment be entered by this court on an opinion rendered after hearing by five judges of whom one was, nearly thirty years previously, employed in the office of a law firm which may be deemed to have been of counsel in the case during the time of such employment?

Assuming, arguendo, that the question can be raised for the first time by a petition for rehearing, we nevertheless are of the view that no attorney-client relationship existed by virtue of the mere fact of employment in the law office.

Merchants’ National Bunk v. Cross, 283 S.W. 555 (Tex.). Membership in the law firm involved is to be *688 distinguished.

Magoon v. Lord-Young Engineering Co., 22 Haw. 245 ;

Re Hawaii Telephone Co., 26 Haw. 405 ;

Anderson v. Rawley Co., 27 Haw. 60 .

Brahan Houston for the petition.

Accordingly, R.L.H. 1955, § 213-3, as amended by Act 5, 1st Sp. S.L. 1959, disqualifying a judge “in any case in. which he has been of counsel” has no application in this case, and the question as to the effect of that section, had it been applicable,, need not be further pursued. The answer to the question above stated is in the affirmative.

Petition denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1966: 11983: 11999: 119662026peak 1966 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ruf v. Honolulu Police Department972 P.2d 1081 (Haw. 1999)
  2. K. M. Young & Associates, Inc. v. Cieslik675 P.2d 793 (Haw. App. 1983)
  3. State v. Midkiff413 P.2d 249 (Haw. 1966)

Most recent

  1. Ruf v. Honolulu Police Department972 P.2d 1081 (Haw. 1999)
  2. K. M. Young & Associates, Inc. v. Cieslik675 P.2d 793 (Haw. App. 1983)
  3. State v. Midkiff413 P.2d 249 (Haw. 1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Merchants' Nat. Bank of Brownsville v. Cross, 283 S.W. 555 (Tex. App. 1926) 6
Anderson v. W. G. Rawley Co., 27 Haw. 60 (1923) 4
Magoon v. Lord-Young Eng'g Co., 22 Haw. 245 (1914) 3
In re Haw. Tel. Co., 26 Haw. 405 (1922) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list