Source: https://www.inversecondemnation.com/hawaiiappellate/hawaii-intermediate-court-of-appeals-opinions/page/2/
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 05:10:57
Document Index: 351787420

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 481', '§ 481', '§ 286', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 601', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 13', '§ 712', '§ 199', '§ 652', '§ 652', '§ 431', '§ 708', '§ 705', '§ 92', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 711', '§ 712', '§ 329', '§ 706', '§ 709']

Hawaii Appellate Opinions: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals opinions
79 posts categorized "Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals opinions"
RAPOZO v. BETTER HEARING OF HAWAII, LLC
No. 27602 (June 26, 2008)
Defendant-Appellant Better Hearing of Hawai‘i, LLC (Better Hearing), appeals from the Judgment of the District Court of the Fifth Circuit (District Court), in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Mervyn Rapozo (Rapozo) and against Better Hearing, entered on November 11, 2005.
In February of 2004, Rapozo purchased hearing aids from Better Hearing which he alleged did not work properly. Approximately seven months after they were purchased, Rapozo attempted to return the hearing aids, requesting a full refund. Better Hearing refused to refund the purchase price.
On July 13, 2005, Rapozo filed a Complaint alleging that: (1) the hearing aids came with a one-year guarantee; (2) Rapozo returned the hearing aids for repair at least five times within the one-year period; (3) the hearing aids were out of service for over thirty days; (4) Better Hearing failed to comply with Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 481K-3 (Supp. 2007) (2) when it failed to accept the return of the hearing aids and make a refund; and (5) therefore, pursuant to HRS § 481K-5 (Supp. 2007), Rapoza was entitled to recover twice the amount of his pecuniary loss, costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney's fees. After a one-day bench trial, judgment was entered in favor of Rapozo and against Better Hearing in the amount of $8,610.66, together with costs and reasonable attorney's fees. On appeal, Better Hearing contends, on several grounds, that Rapozo was not entitled to a refund under Hawai‘i's Assistive Technology Warranty Act, HRS Chapter 481K (Supp. 2007). For the reasons set forth below, we agree. [footnote omitted]
STATE v. VIERRA
No. 27508 (June 25, 2008)
Defendant-Appellant Mariann U. Vierra (Vierra) was sentenced as a persistent repeat offender of the offense of driving without a license (DWOL). Under HRS § 286-136(b) (Supp. 1996), "[a]ny person who is convicted" of DWOL is subject to an enhanced penalty "if the person has two or more prior convictions for the same offense in the preceding five[-]year period." This appeal turns on how to measure "the preceding five[-]year period" referred to in the statute. The pivotal question is: Should the statute be interpreted as measuring the preceding five-year period from the date the defendant committed the current DWOL offense or the date the defendant is sentenced on the current DWOL offense? We interpret the statute as measuring the five-year period based on the date the defendant committed the current DWOL offense. We therefore reject Vierra's argument that she did not have two or more prior DWOL convictions, and we affirm her sentences. [emphasis original]
Dissenting opinion by Foley, J. [pdf]
in Criminal, Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals opinions | Permalink
OHANA PALE KE AO v. BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF HAWAI'I
No 27855 (May 21, 2008)
The Board of Agriculture (the Board) of the State of Hawai'i (the State) appeals from: (1) the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (the circuit court) on March 3, 2006 in favor of 'Ohana Pale Ke Ao; Kohanaiki 'Ohana; GMO-Free Hawai'i; and Sierra Club, Hawai'i Chapter (Plaintiffs); and (2) the order granting Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denying the Board's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment entered on December 16, 2005.
This appeal presents two issues: (1) whether the Board was required to comply with the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA), Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 343, before approving a permit to import genetically engineered (GE) algae for production in a facility on state lands; and if so, (2) whether two prior environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared for the state lands where production of the GE algae is planned satisfied the Board's HEPA obligations.
We affirm. [footnotes omitted]
MOI v. STATE OF HAWAI'I, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
No. 27557 (May 21, 2008)
This appeal presents the question of whether an adult corrections officer, who was injured while bowling, is entitled to compensation under the Hawai'i workers' compensation law. We hold that the injuries sustained by the adult corrections officer were not work related. We therefore affirm the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB) to deny the adult corrections officer's claim for workers' compensation.
INDYMAC BANK v. MIGUEL
Nos. 26881, 27406 & 27561 (May 9, 2008)
OPINION OF THE COURT BY FUJISE, J.
Plaintiff-Appellants Vic Garo Miguel and Estrellita Garin Miguel (Estrellita) (collectively Appellants) appeal from the decree of foreclosure entered on September 9, 2004 in No. 26881, the judgment confirming the sale entered on June 30, 2005 in No. 27406, and the order expunging the notices of pendency of action entered on September 20, 2005 in No. 27561, rendered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court). The September 9, 2004 decree of foreclosure was entered pursuant to the circuit court's findings of fact and conclusions of law granting the July 19, 2004 motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff-Appellee IndyMac Bank (IndyMac). The June 20, 2005 judgment confirming the sale was entered pursuant to the order confirming the sale and the writ of possession, also entered on June 30, 2005.
Appellants' arguments . . . are unpersuasive. The [j]udgment[s] . . . are affirmed. [footnote omitted]
STATE OF HAWAI'I v. SCHAEFER
Nos. 26916, 26917 (Apr. 30, 2008)
In these consolidated appeals from judgments entered by the District Court of the Fifth Circuit (the district court) on October 1, 2004, Defendants-Appellants April Esther Schaefer (April), also known as April Ester Paiva, and Steven Schaefer (Steven) (collectively, Appellants) challenge, on several grounds, the sentences imposed against them following their convictions for nineteen misdemeanor offenses.
Since the record indicates that the district court failed to personally afford Steven and April an opportunity to make a statement prior to sentencing, we vacate their respective sentences and remand for resentencing before a different judge. We further instruct that on remand, the district court shall determine whether the pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) prepared for Steven and April, respectively, complied with the plea agreement that each entered into with Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai‘i (the State). If the district court determines that the plea agreement was materially breached, the district court shall determine the appropriate remedy for the breach. Our disposition of this appeal renders it unnecessary to address the remaining points raised on appeal by Appellants. [footnote omitted]
No 27369 (April 29, 2008)
In this secondary appeal, Provider-Appellant Emerson M.F. Jou, M.D. (Jou) appeals from the Judgment filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court) on May 23, 2005 (Judgment). The Circuit Court ruled in favor of Insurance Commissioner J.P. Schmidt (Commissioner Schmidt), Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs of the State of Hawai'i (DCCA), and Island Insurance Company, Ltd. (Island), affirming Commissioner Schmidt's Final Order Following remand, which was filed on May 26, 2004. Jou filed a timely notice of appeal on June 21, 2005.
On appeal, Jou argues, inter alia, that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) denying his request that the presiding judge be disqualified based on the composition of the Hawai'i Judicial Selection Commission (JSC), which included an Island employee; (2) finding that the written notice of denial of benefits mandated by Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 431:10C-304(3)(B) is inapplicable to billing disputes, as opposed to treatment disputes; and (3) finding that the payment of interest mandated by HRS § 431:10C-304(4) is inapplicable when a payment is delayed in conjunction with a billing dispute. For the reasons discussed herein, we hold: (1) Jou failed to submit a disqualifying affidavit satisfying the statutory requirements of HRS § 601-7 and, inlight of the rules governing the conduct of the JSC, there is no appearance of impropriety requiring the disqualification of the presiding judge in this case; (2) notice of denial was required; and (3) interest was due to Jou in this case. [footnote omitted]
GILLIAN v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY
No. 28075 (April 17, 2008)
Defendant-Appellant Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) appeals from the Amended Partial Judgment filed on July 17, 2006 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court). The circuit court entered judgment against GEICO and in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees Margret Gillian (Gillan) and Howard Keller, M.D. (Dr. Keller) (hereinafter collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) on Plaintiffs' claim that GEICO violated Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 431:10C-308.5 (2005 Repl.) by basing its denial of Gillian's claim for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits on the opinion of a doctor whom GEICO had chosen, without Gillian's approval, to review Gillian's medical records.
On appeal, GEICO contends the circuit court erred by granting partial judgment against GEICO and in favor of Plaintiffs because the judgment was based on erroneous interpretation of HRS § 431:10C-308.5(b).
The Amended Partial Judgment filed on July 17, 2006 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit is vacated and this case is remanded for further proceedings. [footnotes omitted]
HAWAII INSURERS COUNCIL v. LINGLE
No. 27840 (April 14, 2008)
Defendants-Appellants Linda Lingle, Governor of the State of Hawai'i; Georgina K. Kawamura, Director of Finance, Department of Budget and Finance; Lawrence M. Reifurth, Director of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA); and J.P. Schmidt, Insurance Commissioner, Insurance Division of the DCCA (collectively referred to as "the State") appeal from the Final Judgment entered on February 27, 2006 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).
On appeal, the State argues that the circuit court erred
(1) in ruling that, under State v. Medeiros, 89 Hawai'i 361, 973 P.2d 736 (1999), the assessments were taxes rather than regulatory fees;
(2) in ruling that the assessments violated the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Hawai'i Constitutions;
(3) in ruling that the assessments violated separation of powers;
(4) in ruling that the assessments violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Hawai'i Constitutions;
(5) in ruling that the assessments violated Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 431:7-204 (2005 Repl.);
(6) in granting the request of Plaintiff-Appellant Hawaii Insurers Council (HIC) for injunctive relief;
(7) in granting HIC an accounting;
(8) in rejecting the State's defense that HIC failed to exhause its administrative remedies; and
(9) in rejecting the State's defense that HIC cannot pursue a declaratory action involving a tax matter.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Final Judgment filed on February 27, 2006 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. [footnotes omitted]
Concurring opinion by Watanabe, J. [pdf]
BALDONADO v. THE WAY OF SALVATION CHURCH
No 27169 (April 10, 2008)
In this consolidated appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, Plaintiffs-Appellants Herminia Baldonado, . . . (collectively Appellants) appeal from
(1) the Final Judgment as to All Claims Between All Parties filed on February 7, 2005 (No. 27169), in which the circuit court granted the January 26, 2004 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion to Dismiss) filed by Defendant-Appellee The Way of Salvation Church (the Church) as to all of Appellants' claims in the Amended Verified Complaint; and
(2) the Final Judgment as to All Claims Between All Parties filed on April 20, 2005 (No. 27298), in which the circuit court denied Appellants' motion for reconsideration of the court's grant of the Church's Motion to Dismiss.
On appeal, Appellants argue the following points of error:
(1) To the extent the circuit court ruled that Appellants lacked standing because Appellants had been expelled from the Church, no matter how unfair the expulsion process was, the court erred as a matter of law.
(2) To the extent the circuit court ruled, under Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(1), that Appellants had been property expelled from the Church, the court erred.
(3) To the extent the circuit court dismissed the case or granted summary judgment in implied reliance on the "ecclesiastical abstention doctrine," the court erred as a matter of law.
(4) The circuit court should have granted Appellants' motion to amend their complaint a second time to state new claims based on Appellants' illegal "expulsion" from the Church and to add updated claims as to the Church's financial management.
For the reasons stated below, we vacate the February 7 and April 20, 2005 final judgments entered by the circuit court. [footnote omitted]
BISCHOFF v. COOK
No. 26660 (March 31, 2008)
Plaintiff-Appellant David Bischoff (Bischoff) appeals from the final judgment entered June 1, 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (circuit court). Final judgment was entered pursuant to the March 29, 2004 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Order) entered in favor of Defendant-Appellee Kimi Cook, formerly known as Kimi Cook-McKie (Cook), following a bench trial.
Bischoff raises six points of error.
Based on the above analysis, the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit's June 1, 2004 judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SMALLWOOD v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
No. 27875 (March 14, 2008)
Plaintiff-Appellant Craig Smallwood (Smallwood) appeals from a Judgment filed on February 25, 2005 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court) in Civil No. 04-1-2315-12. The Circuit Court entered Judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee City and County of Honolulu (City) upon the Circuit Court's February 23, 2005 Order Granting City's Motion to Dismiss Smallwood's Complaint (Order Granting Dismissal). The Circuit Court based its dismissal of the Complaint on two findings: (1) that the claims set forth in the Complaint were previously adjudicated in Smallwood v. City, Civil No. 04-1-0974-05 (Prior Litigation) and, therefore, the Complaint constituted an impermissible "collateral attack" on the prior judgment; and (2) that the Circuit Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over certain claims set forth in the Complaint because Smallwood failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to those claims.
On appeal, Smallwood argues that the Circuit Court erred in finding that the Complaint constituted a collateral attack on the judgment in the Prior Litigation. Smallwood does not challenge on appeal the Circuit Court's second finding that it lacked jurisdiction over certain claim in the Complaint based on Smallwood's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The judgment in the Prior Litigation: (1) dismissed without prejudice a prior complaint by Smallwood against City; and (2) dismissed with prejudice certain claims for injunctive relief that were actually adjudicated on the merits in that case. Smallwood's Complaint herein does not seek to indirectly set aside, invalidate, avoid, or impeach the judgment in the Prior Litigation through an independent action seeking an alternative form of relief or result. Therefore, we hold that the filing of the Complaint did not constitute an impermissible collateral attack on the prior judgment. The Circuit Court's ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over certain of Smallwood's claims was not an adjudication on the merits and, accordingly, the Circuit Court's dismissal with prejudice must have been based on the erroneous application of the collateral attack doctrine. We vacate the Judgment and Order Granting Dismissal and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. [footnote omitted]
LIKI v. FIRST FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE OF HAWAI'I, INC.
No. 28076 (February 29, 2008)
Plaintiff-Appellant Lilivau Liki (Liki) was injured when he was struck by an uninsured motor vehicle at a gas station. At the time of the accident, Liki was an employee of Defendant-Appellee M. Nakai Repair Service, Ltd. (M. Nakai), and he was cleaning a sump at the gas station as part of his job duties. M. Nakai had assigned a company truck to Liki, which Liki drove to the gas station on the morning of the accident. Liki parked the truck at the station, and was cleaning the sump using tool that he had transported in the truck when the uninsured motorist backed into him.
The truck was covered by a Business Auto Policy issued by Defendant-Appellee First Fire & Casualty Insurance of Hawaii, Inc. (First Insurance). The policy had an uninsured motorist (UM) endorsement, and Liki sought coverage under the endorsement. After First Insurance denied coverage, Liki filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court). First Insurance and M. Nakai (collectively Defendants) filed a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted on the ground that Liki had an insufficient connection with the M. Nakai truck at the time of the accident to bring him within the scope of the policy's UM coverage. Liki now appeals from: (1) the final judgment entered on July 11, 2006 by the circuit court in favor of Defendants (Final Judgment), and (2) the order filed on July 11, 2006 granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Order).
This appeal requires us to apply the "chain of events" test adopted by the Hawai'i Supreme Court in Dawes v. First Ins. Co., of Hawai'i, Ltd., 77 Hawai'i 117, 132-33, 883 P.2d 38, 53-54 (1994). Applying that test here, we conclude that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to Defendants. Accordingly, we vacate the Final Judgment and Order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [footnotes omitted]
BANK OF HAWAI'I v. SHINN
No. 27832 (February 29, 2008)
Defendant-Appellant Michael J. Shinn (Shinn) appeals from the "Order Denying Defendant Michael L. Shinn's rule 60(b) Motion on Statutory and Due Process Grounds (1) to Set Aside this Court's December 18, 2003, 'Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Deficiency Judgment Against Defendants Michael J. Shinn and Kahala Ventures Entered on 12/21/93,' and (2) to Expunge this Court's December 21, 1993, 'Plaintiff Bank of Hawaii's Joint and Several Judgment Against Defendants Michael L. Shinn, Donald T. Eovino, and Kahala Ventures,' Recorded at the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on 12/21/93, as Document No. 93-211815, filed on January 17, 2006," filed on March 7, 2006, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).
On appeal, Shinn argues that he "was simultaneously deprived of (1) his State [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)] Section 657-5 statutory procedural rights, (2) his Article 1 of Section 5 State Constitutional procedural rights, and (3) his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Federal Constitutional procedural rights when the [circuit] court without notice to him extended [BOH's] 1993 judgment against him, rendering that extension null and void, as a result of which [Shinn's] rule 60(b) Motion to set aside that judgment should have been granted."
The "Order Denying Defendant Michael L. Shinn's rule 60(b) Motion on Statutory and Due Process Grounds (1) to Set Aside this Court's December 18, 2003, 'Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Deficiency Judgment Against Defendants Michael J. Shinn and Kahala Ventures Entered on 12/21/93,' and (2) to Expunge this Court's December 21, 1993, 'Plaintiff Bank of Hawaii's Joint and Several Judgment Against Defendants Michael L. Shinn, Donald T. Eovino, and Kahala Ventures,' Recorded at the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on 12/21/93, as Document No. 93-211815, filed on January 17, 2006," filed on March 7, 2006, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit is affirmed. [footnotes omitted]
ASSOCIATION OF HOME OWNERS OF KAI NUI COURT v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
February 28, 2008 (No. 27408)
Defendant-Appellant City and County of Honolulu (City) appeals from a Judgment filed on June 21, 2005 in the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu District (District Court). The District Court entered Judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Association of Home Owners of Kai Nui Court (Association) and against City in the amount of $11,417.03 and costs in the amount of $147.00. The money damages were awarded to Association for property damage, i.e., damage to Association's entry/exit gate that occurred when City's refuse truck came into contact with Association's gate.
On appeal, City argues that the District Court abused its discretion by granting Association's Motion for Reconsideration of the District Court's prior ruling, which granted City's oral District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that: (1) it is not an abuse of discretion for a court to reconsider its ruling upon an oral motion when the court, upon review of persuasive legal authorities, determines that it made a mistake in its oral ruling; and (2) the District Court did not err in granting Association's Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm. [footnotes omitted]
February 27, 2007 (No. 26995)
Petitioner-Appellant Peter B. Carlisle, in his official capacity as the Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu, on behalf of the State of Hawai‘i (the State), filed a Verified Petition for Forfeiture seeking to forfeit property including a boat. That property was allegedly used to commit intentional violations of Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) §§ 13-95-70, entitled Stony corals, and 13-95-71, entitled Live rocks.
Claimants/Interested Persons-Appellees Dang Van Tran (Dang) and Sang Tran (Sang) (collectively, Claimants) filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In an order entered on February 1, 2002 (February 1, 2002 Order), the circuit court granted the motion. The circuit court found that the offenses that were allegedly committed in connection with the use of the property were not "covered offenses" within the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712A-4 (1999), and thus could not provide the basis for forfeiture.
On December 6, 2004, the circuit court reduced the February 1, 2002 Order to a judgment entered in favor of Claimants and against the State (Judgment). On December 9, 2004, the State filed a notice of appeal from the Judgment. On January 20, 2005, the circuit court entered an order nunc pro tunc to February 1, 2002, granting in part and denying in part Claimants' motion to strike the judgment, or in the alternative, to amend the Judgment (January 20, 2005 Nunc Pro Tunc Order Amending Judgment). The State filed a second notice of appeal on January 24, 2005.
Claimants contend that the State's "right to prosecute this appeal is time barred" because the State did not file its notice of appeal until two years and nine months after the February 1, 2002 Order, which Claimants maintain was an appealable final order. The State contends that this court has jurisdiction and that the circuit court erred in granting Claimants' motion to dismiss the petition because Claimants' property was forfeitable under HRS Chapter 712A and HRS § 199-7 (1993 & Supp. 1999).
We conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction and that the circuit court erred in dismissing the petition. Accordingly, we vacate the February 1, 2002 Order, the December 6, 2004 Judgment, and the January 20, 2005 Nunc Pro Tunc Order Amending Judgment, and remand for further proceedings. [footnotes omitted]
INOUE v. INOUE
January 31, 2008 (No. 28028)
Defendant-Appellant Gina L. Inoue, now known as Gina L. Khouw (Gina), appeals from the Divorce Decree filed on June 9, 2006 (Divorce Decree), as well as several related orders entered by the Family Court of the First Circuit (family court).
We conclude that the family court was correct in holding that Gina was equitably estopped in the circumstances of this case. Since we find that Gina's points of error are without merit, we affirm.
STATE OF HAWAI'I v. CUTSINGER
January 30, 2008 (No. 28203)
The parties agree that pursuant to State v. Maugaotega, 115 Hawai'i 432, 168 P.3d 562 (2007) (hereinafter, "Maugaotega II"), the extended term sentence imposed upon Defendant-Appellant Walter Lee Cutsinger (Cutsinger) must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
Accordingly, we remand the case for resentencing in accordance with Act 1.
ROSALES v. DUELL
January 9, 2008 (No. 27059)
Garnishee-Appellant First Hawaiian Bank (FHB) appeals from the "Order Re Garnishee First Hawaii [sic] Bank's Claim of Statutory Right of Offset" (Order) filed on December 14 2004 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court). The circuit court overruled FHB's purported right to a setoff under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 652-2 (1993) and ordered the attorney for Petitioner-Appellee Adolfo R. Rosales (Rosales) to prepare a garnishee order against FHB.
On appeal, FHB argues that the circuit court erred in overruling FHB's right to offset deposits in the FHB accounts of Alejandria B. Pineda (Pineda) from the amount Pineda still owed on a FHB loan. FHB contends the circuit court erroneously ignored the plain language of HRS § 652-2, pursuant to which FHB had a right of setoff. FHB also maintains that in the Order, the circuit court erroneously applied and relief on Bank of Hawaii v. DeYoung, 92 Hawai'i 347, 992 P.2d 42 (2000), which FHB asserts is distinguishable from the instant case. FHB asks this court to reverse the circuit court's Order and reinstate FHB's right of offset.
The "Order Re Garnishee First Hawaii [sic] Bank's Claim of Statutory Right of Offset,' filed on December 14, 2004, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit is vacated, and this case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. [footnote omitted]
TANAKA v. STATE OF HAWAI'I, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
December 31, 2007 (No. 27487)
This appeal stems from two consolidated cases for declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the following actions by Defendants-Appellees State of Hawai'i (the State) and Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai'i (DLNR or the department) (collectively, State Defendants) as being in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 91 (1993 & Supp. 2006), the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act (HAPA): (1) allowing game-bird hunting in the County of Hawai'i on Wednesdays and Thursdays, (2) requiring hunters to purchase a wildlife-conservation stamp and bird-hunting stamp before they can obtain a license to hunt for birds, and (3) allowing black-powder hunting in areas restrict to archery hunting by DLNR rules.
We conclude that DLNR exceeded its authority when it allowed game-bird hunting on Wednesdays and Thursdays and exacted fees for the wildlife-conservation and bird-hunting stamps (the stamp fees) without going through the rulemaking procedures set forth in HRS chapter 91. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's judgment as to claims 1 and 2. [footnote omitted]
STATE OF HAWAI'I v. WHITAKER
December 31, 2007 (No. 26777)
As a result of a claim made by Defendant-Appellant Hiram Whitaker (Whitaker) to AIG Hawai'i Insurance Company, Inc. (AIG), his automobile insurance carrier, in which he sought insurance benefits for vandalism damages to his car, Whitaker was indicted, convicted, and sentenced for Insurance Fraud in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 431:10C-307.7(a)(1) and (b)(2) (2005), and Attempted Theft in the Second Degree (Attempted Theft 2) in violation of HRS § 708-831(1)(b) (Supp. 2000) and HRS § 705-500 (1993).
Whitaker now appeals from the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (the circuit court) on July 27, 2004, alleging that the circuit court erroneously instructed the jury about the offenses with which he was charged.
RIGHT TO KNOW COMMITTEE v. CITY COUNCIL, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
December 28, 2007 (No. 27996)
Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees the City Council of the City and County of Honolulu (Council) and Donovan M. Dela Cruz, Todd K. Apo, Barbara Marshall, Charles K. Djou, Ann H. Kobayashi, Rod Tam, Romy M. Cachola, Gary H. Okino, and Nester R. Garcia, in their official capacities as members of the Honolulu City Council, (hereinafter, Council and the individual defendants are collectively referred to as Defendants) appeal from the Final Judgment entered on May 26, 2006 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.
Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Right To Know Committee; League of Women Voters of Hawai'i; Society of Professional Journalists, Hawaii Chapter; University of Hawaii Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists; Big Island Press Club, Inc.; Hawaii Political Reform Project; Citizen Voice; and Honolulu Community Media Council (hereinafter collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) cross-appeal as to the amount of the attorney's fees awarded.
The Final Judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit on May 26, 2006 is vacated, and this case is remanded with direction to the circuit court to (2) enter judgment that provides that "declaratory judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants City Council, City and County of Honolulu; onovan M. Dela Cruz, Todd K. Apo, Barbara Marshall, Charles K. Djou, Ann H. Kobayashi, Rod Tam, Romy M. Cachola, Gary H. Okino, and Nester R. Garcia, in their official capacities as members of the Honolulu City Council, declaring that HRS § 92-2.5 did not permit members of the Honolulu City Council to engage in serial communications involving a quorum of Council members in deliberating Resolution 05-243" and (2) award Plaintiffs the amount of $41,353.14 in attorneys' fees, along with costs previously awarded. [footnotes omitted]
STATE OF HAWAI'I v. MADDOX
December 11, 2007 (No. 27523)
This case arises out of an altercation between Defendant-Appellant Mickey A. Maddox (Maddox) and Dale Mota (Mota). Mota was the new boyfriend of Maddox's ex-girlfriend Jane Barton (Barton). Maddox arrived unexpectedly at the residence shared by Barton and Mota late one evening, and a fight ensued between Maddox and Mota. During the fight, Maddox stabbed Mota in the chest with the knife blade of a utility tool. The knife blade penetrated very close to Mota's heart, but missed the heart as well as other important organs and vessels. Maddox and Mota accused each other of being the initial aggressor and Maddox claimed self-defense.
Maddox was indicted on charges of first degree assault and first degree burglary. After a jury trial, Maddox was found guilty as charged of first degree assault and guilty of the included offense of second degree criminal trespass. Prior to sentencing, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai'i (the State) file a motion for an extended term of imprisonment on the first degree assault charge, asserting that Maddox qualified as a persistent offender under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-662(1) (Supp. 2003), because he had two or more prior convictions for felonies committed at different times while he was an adult, and as a multiple offender under HRS § 706-662(4) (Supp. 2003), because he was being sentenced while already under sentence of imprisonment for a felony. The State also moved for a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment pursuant to HRS § 706-606.5 (Supp. 1999) based on Maddox's status as a repeat offender.
The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (circuit court) granted the State's motions and sentenced Maddox to an extended term of twenty years of imprisonment and a mandatory minimum of three years and four months on the first degree assault conviction.
We hold that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Mota's injury created a substantial risk of death and therefore vacate Maddox's conviction for first degree assault. Because, however, there was ample evidence to prove that Maddox committed the lesser included offense of second degree assault, we remand the case with instructions that the circuit court enter a judgment of conviction on the lesser included offense. We further hold that the circuit court erred in imposing an extended term of imprisonment and ordering the payment of restitution. We remand the case for resentencing on the lesser included offense of second degree assault. [footnotes omitted]
STATE OF HAWAI'I v. YAMADA
December 6, 2007 (No. 27778)
In the early morning hours of February 14, 2003, Nicholas Harukichi Kaneta (Kaneta) and his friend Quinton Yoza (Yoza), were robbed and severely beaten at the Diamond Head lookout by two male assailants, one of whom wielded a baseball bat. Five weeks later, on March 21, 2003, Defendant-Appellant Kaleokalani Yamada (Yamada or Defendant) was arrested by police at the University of Hawai'i (U.H.) shortly after he and an unknown accomplice used a baseball bat to rob two tourists in the parking lot of the Honolulu Zoo. Police used photographs taken of Yamada after his arrest to assemble a photographic array, which they showed to Kaneta, Yoza, and a witness to the Diamond Head incident. Oliko Kamaola O'Kalani Rory Cookman (Cookman). Yoza and Cookman identified Yamada as one of the perpetrators of that attack.
Yamada now appeals from the January 25, 2006 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence of the circuit court. Yamada contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting evidence relating to his apprehension at U.H., as well as the photographs of the baseball bat. Yamada also challenges the admission of the photographic array, the sufficiency of the evidence against him, and the conduct of the prosecutor in closing argument. He further seeks reconsideration of the supreme court's decision to vacate the circuit court's grant of a new trial based on the sleeping juror. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the circuit court's judgment and sentence.
November 21, 2007 (No. 27924)
Defendant-Appellant Duke W. Holt (Holt or Mr. Holt) appeals from the Judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (the circuit court) on April 27, 2006, convicting and sentencing him for Harassment by Stalking, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-1106.5(1) (Supp. 2006). We vacate the sentence portion of the Judgment and remand for resentencing. [footnotes omitted]
STATE v. HEGGLAND
November 8, 2007 (No. 27755)
Per Curiam. In this appeal, Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawai'i (the State) challenges the sentence of probation that the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (the circuit court) imposed on Defendant-Appellee Gregory Heggland (Heggland or Mr. Heggland) following Heggland's plea of guilty to Promotion a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1243(1) (Supp. 2005), and Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia, in violation of HRS § 329-43.5(a) (1993). During the proceedings below, the State moved to sentence Heggland to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of one year and eight months pursuant to HRS § 706-606-5 (1993 & Supp. 2004) on grounds that Heggland was a repeat offender, having committed the offense of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree on August 28, 2003, during the period "[w]ithin the maximum term of imprisonment possible after a prior felony conviction" in Colorado for Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Robbery. The circuit court denied the State's motion, concluding that the State failed to adduce sufficient evidence that Heggland was represented by counsel or waived his right to representation by counsel at the time of his prior conviction in Colorado.
We vacate the sentencing portion of the Judgment and remand for resentencing. [footnotes omitted]
MOYLE v. Y & Y HYUP SHIN CORPORATION
November 8, 2007 (No. 26582)
Plaintiff-Appellant Roger Scott Moyle (Appellant) appeals from the final judgment entered March 5, 2004, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court). The circuit court entered final judgment pursuant to the jury verdict rendered in favor of Defendants-Appellees Y & Y Hyup Shin, Corp., (Y & Y) and TTJJKK Inc. (TTJJLL) (collectively Appellees), both of who were doing business as Do Re Mi Karaoke (Do Re Mi). In bringing this appeal, Appellant argues: (1) the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding a set of nine police reports (police reports); (2) the circuit court improperly instructed the jury (a) that under ordinary circumstances "criminal acts are not reasonably to be expected," (b) that "[t]here can be no liability for civil damages against a person at the scene of a crime for failure to obtain assistance from law enforcement or medial personnel[,]" (c) that "[i]ntoxicated liquor consumers may not seek recovery from the establishment which sold them alcohol[,]" and (d) by refusing to give a "mode of operation" instruction; (3) the circuit court erred by including two improper questions in the special verdict form it submitted to the jury; and (4) that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Appellant's Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 60(b) motion.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Final Judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit on March 5, 2004. [footnotes omitted]
STATE v. POND
October 11, 2007 (No. 27847)
Following an incident that occurred on December 12, 2005 (the December 2005 incident), Defendant-Appellant Kevin Pond (Pond or Mr. Pond) was charged with, and convicted and sentenced for, Abuse of Family or Household Member in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 709-906 (Supp. 2004). . .
PORTER v. HU
Oct. 4, 2007 (No. 26438, consolidated with No. 26602)
In this consolidated appeal, Defendants/ Counterclaimants/Appellants Joseph Hu, Wayne Wehr, William F. Schnitzer, Michele Clark, Servco Pacific Inc., and American Insurance Agency appeal from the January 29, 2004 Final Judgment (No. 26438) and the May 4, 2004 First Amended Final Judgment (No. 26602), both filed in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit.
The Final Judgment filed on January 29, 2004 and the First Amended Final Judgment filed on May 4, 2004 in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit are affirmed. [footnotes omitted]
« Newer opinions