Practice and Procedure

A trial court has wide latitude and discretion in supervising the time limits, the scope, and the extent of argument and summation. A trial court’s decision on this matter is subject to review for abuse of discretion. Pule v. ASG, 1 ASR3d 8 (1997).

The trial court’s limitation of closing arguments to two minutes per side was not unreasonable given the facts and circumstances of this case. Pule v. ASG, 1 ASR3d 8 (1997).

Generally, when counsel fails to make a timely objection to some purported trial error there must be a showing of plain error to afford a basis of reversal. Pule v. ASG, 1 ASR3d 8 (1997).

An action for malicious prosecution may not be asserted by way of cross-complaint or counterclaim in the original proceedings, prior to its termination, since it is essential that the original proceedings shall have previously terminated in favor of the party bringing the malicious prosecution action. Bank of Hawaii v. Randall, 1 ASR3d 26 (1997).

Arguments regarding the specificity of the trial court’s findings should not be raised for the first time on appeal. Appellants who fail to raise such objections via motion to amend findings or a motion to make further findings will be said to have waived these issues for appeal. Tuaolo v. Fruean, 1 ASR3d 28 (1997).

The doctrine of res judicata precludes relitigation of the legal and factual issues that were settled between the same parties in prior litigation. ASG v. Meredith, et al., 1 ASR3d 34 (1997).

The doctrine of res judicata precludes relitigation of issues that could have been raised but may not have been raised in the prior litigation. ASG v. Meredith, et al., 1 ASR3d 34 (1997).

Where doctrine of res judicata barred action, equitable claims, claims regarding oral representations made by government officials, and claims that the government forfeited its title need not be reached. ASG v. Meredith, et al., 1 ASR3d 34 (1997).