Court Opinion

ID: 9371205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 18:03:39.400916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:26.086560
License: Public Domain

Electronically Filed
                                                        Supreme Court
                                                        SCOT-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                        15-FEB-2023
                                                        07:51 AM
                                                        Dkt. 80 ODSLJ

                          SCOT-XX-XXXXXXX

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
________________________________________________________________

              LAULANI TEALE, individual, Appellant,

                                vs.

      BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, State of Hawaiʻi,
   and the UNIVERSITY OF HAWAIʻI, State of Hawaiʻi, Appellees.
________________________________________________________________

       APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES

   ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

          Upon review of Appellant’s appeal from Appellee Board
of Land and Natural Resources’ (BLNR’s) approval of the “Mauna
Kea Comprehensive Management Plan 2022 Supplement” (2022
Supplement) under “Item K-2 of its agenda” at the July 22, 2022
“hearing,” and (2) the “implicit denial” of Appellant’s request
for a contested case hearing, and the record, it appears this
court lacks appellate jurisdiction over the appeal.
          Based on this record, what occurred before the BLNR on
July 22, 2022, in relation to the 2022 Supplement, did not
result from a contested case or the denial of a contested case
request because the discussion on July 22, 2022, did not prevent
Appellant from filing a petition for a contested case hearing.
Appellant filed a petition and that petition remains pending in
the BLNR.    What occurred on July 22, 2022, was thus not a
proceeding that determined Appellant’s legal rights, duties, or
privileges.    See Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-1 (Supp.
2021) (defining a “contested case” as “a proceeding in which the
legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are
required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency
hearing”).    Because what occurred on July 22, 2022, in relation
to the 2022 Supplement was not a contested case, or a denial of
a request for a contested case, this court does not have
jurisdiction over this direct appeal under HRS §§ 183C-9 (Supp.
2021) and 91-14(a) (2012 & Supp. 2021). 1
             IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for
lack of appellate jurisdiction.
             DATED:   Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, February 15, 2023.
                                    /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
                                    /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
                                    /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
                                    /s/ Michael D. Wilson
                                    /s/ Todd W. Eddins

      1     HRS § 91-7 (2012 & Supp. 2021) does not authorize a direct appeal
to this court, or for a declaratory judgment action to originate in this
court. See Lingle v. Hawaii Gov’t Employees Ass’n, AFSCME, Local 152, AFL-
CIO, 107 Hawaiʻi 178, 184, 111 P.3d 587, 593 (2005) (“The right to appeal is
purely statutory and exists only when jurisdiction is given by some
constitutional or statutory provision.”).

                                      2