IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I


---o0o--



RICHARD SUNG HONG WONG, MARI STONE WONG, and KATHLEEN WONG,
Plaintiffs-Appellants

vs.

BENJAMIN CAYETANO, EARL I. ANZAI, MARGERY BRONSTER,
THOMAS R. KELLER, LAWRENCE A. GOYA, CYNTHIA QUINN, HUGH R.
JONES, DOROTHY SELLERS, STEVE GOODENOW, JOHN TSUKIYAMA,
Defendants-Appellees

and


JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants


NO. 27117



APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 02-1-2411)





AUGUST 29, 2006





ORDER OF CORRECTION
(By: Duffy, J.)

The opinion of the court filed on July 26, 2006 is hereby corrected as follows (deletions are bracketed and additions are double underscored):

Title: OPINION OF THE COURT BY DUFFY, ACTING C.J.

Line 5 from the bottom of page 1: In this action for malicious prosecution [Defendants] Plaintiffs-

Line 1 from the top of footnote 4 on page 4: In this connection, we note that the Cayetano Group requests[,] that we

Lines 4-5 from the top of footnote 4 on page 4: (noting that, where the record on appeal does not provide sufficient information, a court may take judicial notice of the record in a related case); Roxas v.

Line 4 from the bottom of page 7: entered a written order denying in part [Wong] Richard's motion to dismiss

Line 2 from the bottom of page 12: After the [Defendants] defendants filed a motion to dismiss or for

Line 9 from the bottom of page 13: grant the [Defendants] defendants' motion, they be "given leave to file an amended

Line 4 from the bottom of page 13: damages, holding that the [Defendants] defendants were entitled to absolute

Line 12 from the bottom of page 17: dismiss on December 24, 2002, arguing that: (1) the Wongs' claims

Line 5 from the bottom of page 23: the error was harmless because the judgment below is supported on

Line 13 from the top of page 28: 699 (1989), rev'd on other grounds by Hac v. Univ. of Hawai`i,

Line 4 from the top of footnote 11 on page 28: for malicious prosecution. However, the majority of courts appears to agree

Line 8 from the top of footnote 11 on page 28: [that], based on the "it cannot be revived" language, the Restatement of Torts

Line 9 from the top of page 40: nevertheless a judicially noticed fact sufficient to meet [the]

The Clerk of the Court is directed to incorporate the foregoing changes in the original opinion and take all necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of these changes.