IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
---o0o--
vs.
and
JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants
APPEAL
FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 02-1-2411)
AUGUST 29, 2006
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.