# Hac v. University of Hawai'i

> Hawaii Supreme Court · July 17, 2003 · 102 Haw. 92

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786851

## Case

- **Full name:** Anna HAC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I; Paul Yuen; Shu Lin; Bharat Kinariwala; N. Thomas Gaarder; James Holm-Kennedy; Frank Koide; Anthony Kuh; David Yun and Kazutoshi Najita, Defendant-Appellees
- **Court:** Hawaii Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 17, 2003
- **Citations:** 102 Haw. 92; 73 P.3d 46; 20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 401; 2003 Haw. LEXIS 341
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Levinson
- **Judges:** Acoba, Hifo, I-V, Vii-Viii, Levinson, Vi-Viii, Moon, Nakayama
- **Cited by:** 120 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786851

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that Hawaii law on intentional infliction of emotional distress follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts
- holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute
- holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to compel discovery in employment discrimination case
- noting that the trial court’s denial of a motion to compel discovery “will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion that results in substantial prejudice to a party.”

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
LEVINSON, J.
I concur in the results reached in Parts IV and V of the majority opinion, although I do not necessarily subscribe to the opinion’s reasoning. I join in Parts VI, VII, and VIII of the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786851. Public record. Not legal advice.