Opinion ID: 870353
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether this Court's Remand in Coupe I Allows Coupe to Challenge the Valuation of the Property Taken in Condemnation 2

Text: Additionally, Coupe argues that it could challenge the just compensation amount because Coupe I returned the parties to their respective prejudgment positions. This argument is also unavailing. In Coupe I, this court remanded both condemnation proceedings for the court to make two determinations: (1) a decision on [Coupe's] motion for statutory damages, Coupe I, 119 Hawai'i at 389, 198 P.3d at 652, and (2) a decision on whether the asserted public purpose was pretextual[,] id. at 390, 198 P.3d at 653. As discussed above, a pretextual defense does not implicate a just condemnation challenge. Similarly, the motion for statutory damages under HRS § 101-27 in this case does not implicate the valuation of the property. Thus, this court did not remand on any issue concerning just compensation. The just compensation value of the property taken in Condemnation 2, then, was not open to litigation on remand. See Standard Mgmt. Inc. v. Kekona, 99 Hawai'i 125, 137, 53 P.3d 264, 276 (App.2001) ([R]emand for a specific act does not reopen the entire case; the lower tribunal only has the authority to carry out the appellate court's mandate.) (Citation omitted.)