No. 22-929
BYD Motors Inc. v. Soderholm Sales and Leasing, Inc.
Tags: appellate-panel appellate-review de-novo-review district-court hawaii-statute judicial-review memorandum-disposition salve-regina-college-v-russell standard-of-review statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2023-05-25
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Memorandum disposition, where the majority of the split appellate panel affirmed the district court's appealed decision without having conducted a de novo review of the district court's interpretation of the Hawaii statute at issue, conflicts with Salve Regina College v. Russell
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Memorandum disposition, where the majority of the split appellate panel affirmed the district court’s appealed decision without having conducted a de novo review of the district court’s interpretation of the Hawaii statute at issue, conflicts with Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 1118. Ct. 1217, 113 L. Ed. 2d 190 (1991).
Docket Entries
2023-05-30
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-25
Stipulation to withdraw the petition submitted. (Received June 1, 2023)
2023-05-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/25/2023.
2023-05-03
Reply of petitioner BYD Motors Inc. filed.
2023-04-24
Brief of respondent Soderholm Sales and Leasing, Inc. in opposition filed.
2023-03-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 24, 2023)
Attorneys
BYD Motors Inc.
Christian Keola Adams — Adams Krek LLP, Petitioner
Christian Keola Adams — Adams Krek LLP, Petitioner
Soderholm Sales and Leasing, Inc.
Jeffrey Philip Miller — Miller Shea, LLLP, Respondent
Jeffrey Philip Miller — Miller Shea, LLLP, Respondent