Opinion ID: 2515085
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Maui Tomorrow

Text: The private attorney general doctrine was revisited by this court in Maui Tomorrow. In beginning our analysis of the Maui Tomorrow facts, we reviewed our discussion of the private attorney general doctrine in Waiahole II, and concluded that [w]e held that the doctrine did not apply under the facts of that case, but did not foreclose application of the doctrine in a future case.  Maui Tomorrow, 110 Hawai'i at 244, 131 P.3d at 527 (emphasis added). This court then applied the Waiahole II three-prong test and, as in Waiahole II, the facts did not satisfy the three prongs of the doctrine. Id. at 245, 131 P.3d 517, 131 P.3d at 528. Maui Tomorrow also focused on the second prong of the doctrine and found that unlike Waiahole II, the plaintiffs were challenging an established government policy. Id. (challenging BLNR's policy of leasing water rights without performing a required EA). The court was careful to note, however, that the policy was the result of an erroneous understanding between two state agencies, rather than actions by the State to abandon or actively oppose the plaintiffs' cause. Id.