Opinion ID: 2561872
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial and the Trial Court's Written Decision

Text: A jury-waived trial commenced on November 19, 2001. At trial, the plaintiffs adduced evidence regarding the events that surrounded the transfer of the Leiali`i parcel, the importance of the land to the native Hawaiians, analogies to Native American property rights, and the developing body of international law that favors the rights of indigenous people to traditional lands. The defendants primarily adduced evidence that the State was authorized to alienate ceded lands from the public lands trust. Additionally, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from even arguing that the State does not have the power to sell [the ceded lands] based on the unpublished decision in Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Board of Land and Natural Resources, No. 19774, 87 Hawaii 471, 959 P.2d 841 (Haw. Mar.12, 1998) (mem.) [hereinafter, Ewa Marina ], [14] wherein this court held that the State, as ceded lands trustee, did not breach its duties by granting a dredge permit for submerged lands to a private party, discussed more fully infra. On December 5, 2002, the trial court issued a 105-page written decision, entitled Opinion of the Court [hereinafter, the written decision]. As discussed more fully infra, the trial court ruled that, although Ewa Marina did not collaterally estop the plaintiffs from bringing their claims, such claims were barred by the doctrines of: (1) sovereign immunity; (2) waiver and estoppel; and (3) justiciabilityspecifically, political question, ripeness, and the' mandate, against advisory opinions. Notwithstanding the above rulings, the trial court also concluded that the State had the express authority to alienate ceded lands from the public lands trust. On December 13, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for HRCP Rule 54(b) certification or, in the alternative, four leave to file an interlocutory appeal, which was granted. The trial court, on January 31, 2003, filed its HRCP Rule 54(b) judgment in favor of the defendants. Both sets of plaintiffs separately filed timely notices of appeal on February 3, 2003.