Background
Self-represented Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant Miyoko Mizuno moved for reconsideration of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ September 16, 2026 Summary Disposition Order.
Mizuno asked the court to reconsider whether a July 18 transcript resolved a different assertion in her third point of error concerning statements allegedly made on July 11.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Mizuno’s motion for reconsideration.
Applying Rule 40(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court concluded that Mizuno presented no point of law or fact that the court had overlooked or misapprehended.
Key Takeaways
- The court declined to reconsider its September 16, 2026 Summary Disposition Order.
- Mizuno’s request focused on whether the July 18 transcript resolved an assertion concerning statements made on July 11.
- The court found no overlooked or misapprehended point of law or fact under Hawaii Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(b).
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the showing required for appellate reconsideration under Hawaii Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(b): the movant must identify a point of law or fact that the court overlooked or misapprehended.
Because the court found that Mizuno made no such showing, its prior Summary Disposition Order remained undisturbed.