Powell v. Century Square/Owner/Management — corrected an attorney’s first name in a prior order

Case
Dean Wesley Powell v. Century Square/Owner/Management, Hawaiiana (Real Estate) Management Company, Ltd., Roman Catholic Church/Corporation, First Insurance (Company) of Hawaii Ltd., and State of Hawaii
Court
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
Judge
Clyde J. Wadsworth (David Y. Ige, 2019)
Date Decided
July 20, 2026
Docket No.
CAAP-24-0000846
Topics
Appellate Procedure; Correction Order; Attorney Credits
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Dean Wesley Powell appealed from proceedings in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit involving Century Square/Owner/Management and several other defendants. The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals filed a Summary Disposition Order in the appeal on July 17, 2026.

The text provided is a July 20, 2026 Order of Correction addressing only the attorney-credit section of that earlier disposition. It does not set out the underlying claims, procedural rulings, or merits analysis contained in the Summary Disposition Order.

The Court’s Holding

The court ordered that the attorney name “Wayne J. Katano” on page nine of the July 17 Summary Disposition Order be corrected to “Wade J. Katano.” The corrected credit identifies Wade J. Katano of the Law Offices of Leslie R. Kop as counsel for AOAO Century Square, Hawaiiana Management Company, Limited, and the Roman Catholic Church in the State of Hawaii.

The court directed its clerk to take all necessary steps to notify publishing agencies of the correction. The order did not alter or restate the prior disposition’s substantive holding.

Key Takeaways

  • The order corrects an attorney’s first name in the court’s July 17, 2026 Summary Disposition Order.
  • The correct name is Wade J. Katano, not Wayne J. Katano.
  • No substantive ruling or merits analysis was changed in the correction order.

Why It Matters

The correction ensures that the appellate record and published attorney credits accurately identify counsel for several defendants-appellees. Because the supplied order is limited to that clerical change, it provides no basis for characterizing the merits or precedential significance of the underlying Summary Disposition Order.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top