Opinion ID: 2515085
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: third prong: the number of people standing to benefit from the decision

Text: DOT and Superferry argue that Sierra Club's theory of benefit is based on the Hawaii Supreme Court decision that was supplanted by Act 2. Sierra Club argues, however, that this court's opinion in Sierra Club I provided a public benefit, because it is generally applicable law that established procedural standing in environmental law and clarified the need to address secondary impacts in environmental review pursuant to HRS chapter 343 and will benefit large numbers of people over long periods of time. Sierra Club also cites to this court's opinion in Sierra Club I, 115 Hawai'i at 343, 167 P.3d at 336, which stated: `All parties involved and society as a whole' would have benefitted had the public been allowed to participate in the review process of the Superferry project, as was envisioned by the legislature when it enacted the Hawai'i Environmental Policy Act. (Emphasis removed.) We agree with Sierra Club, and further note that with our holding today that Act 2 is unconstitutional, DOT and Superferry's reliance on Act 2 is without merit. In sum, the facts of this case satisfy all three prongs of the private attorney general doctrine. Sierra Club having met the requirements for entitlement to the benefits of the private attorney general doctrine, we adopt the doctrine. Application of the private attorney general doctrine is, however, subject to the defenses which a defendant may have, so we now turn to the respective defenses asserted by Superferry and DOT to its application.