Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al - Page 21




                                       - 11 -                                         

               On June 9, 1992, respondent filed motions for leave to file            
          motions to vacate the decisions entered against the Thompsons,              
          the Cravenses, and another test case petitioner, Ralph J. Rina              
          (Mr. Rina), docket No. 17640-83.  Respondent's motions to vacate            
          alleged that, before the trial of the test cases, respondent's              
          trial attorney, Kenneth W. McWade (Mr. McWade), and his                     
          supervisor, Honolulu District Counsel William A. Sims (Mr. Sims),           
          had entered into contingent settlement agreements with the                  
          Thompsons and the Cravenses that had not been disclosed to the              
          Court or to the other test case petitioners or their counsel.               
          Respondent asked the Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to             
          determine whether the undisclosed agreements with the Thompsons             
          and the Cravenses had affected the trial of the test cases or the           
          opinion of the Court.                                                       
          On June 22, 1992, Judge Goffe granted respondent's motions                  
          to vacate filed in the Thompson and Cravens cases, vacated the              
          decisions entered in those cases, ordered the parties to file               
          agreed decisions with the Court, or otherwise move as                       
          appropriate, and denied respondent's request for an evidentiary             
          hearing.  By order dated June 22, 1992, Judge Goffe also denied             
          respondent's motion to vacate the decision entered against                  
          Mr. Rina, on the ground that the testimony, stipulated facts, and           
          exhibits relating to the Thompson and Cravens cases had no                  
          material effect on the Court's Dixon II opinion as it related to            
          Mr. Rina.                                                                   



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011