Opinion ID: 2582211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Yamasaki

Text: In 1983, the trustees, due to their dissatisfaction, initiated the action in Yamasaki against the State based on the State's alleged failure to fulfill its obligation to allocate twenty per cent of all funds derived from the public land trust to OHA as required by HRS § 10-13.5 [(1985)]. 69 Haw. at 165, 737 P.2d at 453. The dispute centered on a claim against the attorney general, the Chairman of the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), and the Director of Finance regarding illegal sand-mining on ceded land at Papohaku Beach that resulted in royalty payments to a private party and land conveyed to the State in lieu of damages. Id. at 166, 737 P.2d at 453. On interlocutory appeal, this court held that it was unable to determine the parameters of HRS § 10-13.5 because the seemingly clear language of HRS § 10-13.5 actually provides no judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the disputes and they cannot be decided without initial policy determinations of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion. Id. at 173, 737 P.2d at 457 (citation, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). Stated differently, this court concluded that the construction of the term `funds' [as used in HRS § 10-13.5] . . . constituted a non-justiciable political question because the legislature had not provided judicially manageable standards. OHA I, 96 Hawai`i at 393 n. 6, 31 P.3d at 906 n. 6 (citing Yamasaki, 69 Haw. at 172-73, 737 P.2d at 457). This court held that, due to the nonjusticiable nature of the issues, no ruling could be made as to whether OHA was entitled to damages for the illegal mining of sand or that a pro rata portion of the land conveyed to the State should be turned over to OHA. Yamasaki, 69 Haw. at 174-74, 737 P.2d at 458.