Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

An individual operated a bed and breakfast (B&B) on Maui under a permit requiring compliance with local regulations and that the owner reside on the property. In 2020, neighbors repeatedly complained to the Maui Department of Planning about noise and the owner’s absence during guest stays. Police were called, and the department investigated, finding evidence that the permit conditions had been violated—including the owner’s own admission that he sometimes stayed elsewhere and evidence of noncompliance with quiet hours and COVID-19 regulations. The department revoked the B&B permit and imposed a two-year ban on future permit applications. The owner appealed this decision to the Maui County Board of Variances and Appeals (BVA), which after several hearings and delays, ultimately upheld the department’s decision.After the BVA announced its decision orally on November 24, 2021, it did not adopt and file formal findings of fact and conclusions of law (FOF/COL) until January 2022, exceeding a 45-day deadline specified in the BVA’s procedural rules. The owner appealed to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, arguing that the BVA’s delay violated its own rules and required reversal. The circuit court affirmed the BVA’s decision, finding the owner in violation of permit conditions and upholding the ban.On further appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reversed, holding that the BVA’s failure to comply with the 45-day rule was a mandatory violation warranting reversal, and that the delay prejudiced the owner’s substantial rights.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi reviewed the case and held that the 45-day deadline in the BVA’s rules is directory, not mandatory, because the rule does not specify a consequence for noncompliance. The court further found that the owner did not suffer prejudice to substantial rights due to the delay. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment and reinstated the circuit court’s decision upholding the permit revocation and ban. View "Norrie v. Maui County Board of Variances and Appeals" on Justia Law

After reports and investigations of sexual abuse allegations against a father, the State’s Department of Human Services (DHS) petitioned for foster custody of his children. The family court consolidated the cases, and in September 2024, it issued orders granting DHS foster custody and incorporating a Service Plan that required the father to participate in sex abuse treatment. Importantly, the plan mandated that he “acknowledge and take responsibility for the sexual abuse to his victims” as a condition of successful completion.The father appealed these orders to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i (ICA), which affirmed the family court's decision. Due to complications with his legal representation, the father’s application for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i was filed late, but the Supreme Court agreed to consider the merits, recognizing his constitutional right to counsel in parental rights termination proceedings.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i reviewed whether the State can require a parent, as part of mandated rehabilitation therapy in child custody proceedings, to make incriminating disclosures. The court held that under Article I, Section 10 of the Hawai‘i Constitution, the State may not require a parent to admit to criminal misconduct as a condition of completing court-ordered therapy, as this violates the privilege against self-incrimination. However, the court clarified that if a parent’s silence or refusal to admit abuse hinders effective therapy, the court may consider that as a factor in custody determinations without violating the constitutional privilege. The court vacated the lower courts’ orders to the extent they required the father to admit to sexual abuse, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The lower courts’ orders were otherwise affirmed. View "In re: T.J." on Justia Law

A student with severe cognitive disabilities attended a public high school in Hawai‘i and was repeatedly sexually abused by male students, resulting in significant psychological harm, including a psychotic breakdown and persistent post-traumatic stress disorder. The student’s mother, acting for herself and her daughter, sued the State of Hawai‘i, the Department of Education, and school employees for negligence, alleging failure to protect her daughter despite the school’s awareness of her vulnerabilities and repeated warning signs. The evidence at trial showed that school staff recognized the student’s extraordinary vulnerability and received multiple reports of abuse but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or address it.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit conducted a lengthy bench trial and found the State liable for negligently failing to protect the student, awarding over $14 million in damages to the plaintiffs. However, without a request from the State, the court sua sponte reduced the damages by 30%, attributing that portion of fault to the male students who committed the abuse, citing Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 663-10.5. The State had not argued at trial that the male students should be apportioned fault; instead, its arguments for apportionment focused on the mother’s alleged negligence, which the court rejected. Plaintiffs moved to amend the judgment to reverse the apportionment, but the court denied the motion.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i held that the circuit court’s sua sponte allocation of fault to the male students violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional due process rights because they lacked notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue. The court further found insufficient evidence that the male students were “other tortfeasors” under the statute and held that apportionment under HRS § 663-10.5 is an affirmative defense, for which the State bears the burden of pleading and proof. The Supreme Court vacated the apportionment, affirmed the remainder of the circuit court’s judgment, and remanded for entry of an amended judgment awarding plaintiffs the full damages. The State’s cross-appeal regarding discovery and damages was rejected. View "R.H. v. Hayashi" on Justia Law

A man was subject to a one-year protective order issued by a family court. He was later charged with two counts of violating this order, based on allegations that he approached the petitioner’s workplace and contacted her in prohibited ways. The man had attended the hearing at which the protective order was issued. At trial, after the State presented its case, the defense argued that personal service of the order was required for a violation, even though the man was present when the order was issued. The State argued that his presence at the hearing provided sufficient notice.The Family Court of the Second Circuit agreed with the defense, concluding that personal service was an element of the offense and that the State had not established this element. The family court acquitted the defendant, entering a judgment of acquittal and dismissing the case. The State appealed, contending that the judgment of acquittal was actually an order sustaining a motion to dismiss and was therefore appealable. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) disagreed, holding that the ruling was an acquittal based on the court’s determination that the State failed to prove an element of the charge, making the appeal unreviewable.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case on certiorari. It held that service is not an element of the offense of violating an order for protection under HRS § 586-11. The court found that the family court erred in interpreting the statute but that the acquittal, even if based on legal error, barred retrial under Article I, Section 10 of the Hawai‘i Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the ICA’s dismissal of the State’s appeal. View "State v. Chau" on Justia Law

Following the devastating 2023 Lahaina wildfires in Maui, which caused significant loss of life and property, numerous victims initiated litigation against various parties including Hawaiian Electric, the State of Hawaiʻi, the County of Maui, and others. To manage the complex and large-scale proceedings, the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit established a special coordination proceeding, appointed liaison counsel, and ultimately oversaw a $4.037 billion global settlement. A major issue arose regarding attorney fees: the court issued an order capping contingency fees, creating a $222 million Common Benefit Fund for attorneys whose collective efforts benefited all claimants, and appointing a Common Fee Review Board to allocate the fund.Prior to this appeal, the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit managed the coordination, administered discovery, approved the settlement, and issued the attorney fee order. Claimant Michael Bates and attorneys Anthony Ranken, Alex Edrenkin, and John Thickstun challenged the court’s authority to issue the fee order, arguing it was void due to lack of jurisdiction, violated constitutional rights, and improperly limited review of fee awards. They appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals and petitioned the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi for extraordinary writs.The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi, after accepting transfer, determined it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine and HRS § 602-5(a)(6). The court held that the Circuit Court had authority to issue the fee order based on the ongoing special proceeding and the equitable common fund doctrine. However, three provisions that barred or penalized appeals of fee awards were vacated as they violated statutory and constitutional rights to review. The remainder of the fee order—including the creation of the Common Benefit Fund, the tiered fee schedule, and the processes for fee awards—was affirmed. The constitutional and abuse of discretion challenges were rejected, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "In re Petition for the Coordination of Individual Plaintiffs Maui Fire Cases" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between the principal members of a defense contracting company after Martin Kao, who had become the CEO and major owner, was charged with crimes related to fraudulent misuse of Paycheck Protection Program funds. The company, which relied on government contracts requiring strict security clearance, suffered significant harm when Kao’s actions led to the invalidation of its facility security clearance and placed it at risk of suspension from federal contracting. The original owner and another entity sought Kao’s disassociation and damages, citing breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and gross negligence. The parties were bound by an operating agreement requiring arbitration for disputes.After a civil complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, an amended operating agreement and voting trust limited Kao’s control, but the company continued to face loss of contracts and financial harm. Arbitration proceedings began, but Kao, citing pending federal criminal charges, unsuccessfully moved to stay the arbitration, arguing his rights against self-incrimination would be prejudiced. The arbitrator denied the stay and ultimately awarded significant damages, including punitive damages, to the plaintiffs.Kao moved to vacate the arbitration award in circuit court, arguing the arbitrator erred in refusing to postpone and in awarding punitive damages. The circuit court denied the motion, finding no “sufficient cause” for postponement and affirming the arbitrator’s authority. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) largely affirmed, holding the arbitrator did not abuse discretion and the punitive damages award was within authority.Upon review, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i held that the proper standard for “sufficient cause for postponement” under Hawai‘i law is “good cause,” and articulated three factors for courts to consider, grounded in the Hawai‘i Constitution. Applying these, the court found Kao had not met the standard, and affirmed the ICA’s judgment. View "Navatek Capital Inc. v. Kao" on Justia Law

Several Central and South American banana plantation workers brought suit alleging that their health was harmed due to exposure to the pesticide dibromochloropropane (DBCP). One plaintiff, Fernando Jimenez Arias, worked as a quality fruit inspector for a Del Monte subsidiary in Costa Rica from 1971 to 1973. His duties included rotating among various farms, sometimes entering banana fields, and sleeping in warehouses where agricultural chemicals were stored, though he never directly handled or observed the application of DBCP. Arias and his wife experienced reproductive issues, including infertility and miscarriages, which they attributed to DBCP exposure.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted Dow Chemical Company’s motions for summary judgment and to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert, Michael J. DiBartolomeis, concluding there was no evidence Arias was exposed to DBCP or that such exposure caused his injuries. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. joined in these motions. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated these orders, holding that Arias’s testimony and other evidence raised genuine issues of material fact regarding exposure and causation.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case on certiorari. It affirmed the ICA’s decision, holding that Arias had presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of possible DBCP exposure and that the expert’s testimony was admissible. The court adopted a new approach for causation in toxic tort cases, following the Restatement (Third) of Torts: first, the plaintiff must show exposure to the agent; second, general causation; and third, specific causation. The court clarified that expert testimony is required and that no rigid dosage proof is necessary. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Patrickson v. DOW Chemical Company" on Justia Law

A petitioner challenged the outcome of a primary election for the Republican nominee for State Senator, District 20, following a tie between two candidates. A tie-breaker was held using the lau hala basket method, resulting in one candidate being selected as the winner. The petitioner sought to invalidate this result, arguing that the tie-breaker required formal rule-making and that a two-vote underage in the district could have affected the election outcome. The underage stemmed from two voters in District 20 who received ballots for a different district, depriving them of the opportunity to vote in their own Senate race.After the tie-breaker, the petitioner did not file an election contest within the statutory deadline. Another individual, however, did file a timely primary election contest, and evidence from that proceeding established the underage and the timeline of when overage/underage reports were made available. The record showed that while some information about ballot errors was accessible before the deadline, the petitioner had not requested it or acted in time. The lower court, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i, considered previous case law and statutory requirements regarding election contests and the reporting of ballot discrepancies.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that extraordinary writ relief is unavailable when the petitioner had an alternative remedy—specifically, a primary election contest—which was not pursued within the required timeframe. The court also clarified that existing statutes governing reporting of ballot overages and underages are ambiguous and suggested that legislative amendments may be necessary. The court declined to grant relief on grounds of extraordinary public importance due to time constraints and statutory deadlines for ballot transmission. View "Fevella v. Nago" on Justia Law

In a recent primary election for State Representative in Hawaii’s District 43, the two Republican candidates, Sheila Medeiros and Kanani Souza, each received 842 votes, resulting in a tie. Under Hawaii law, such ties are resolved “by lot.” The Chief Election Officer conducted a public drawing using plastic capsules containing each candidate’s name, drawn from a basket, and Medeiros’ name was selected, making her the nominee. However, subsequent review revealed that two ballots from voters registered in a different district (District 40) were mistakenly issued and counted in District 43. Records do not indicate how these ballots were voted or whether they affected the tied race’s outcome, but in a tie, even a single improper ballot could be decisive.Following the election, Souza contested the result, arguing that the overage of two ballots from outside the district made the outcome unreliable, and that the method for breaking the tie was not properly established by rule. The Office of Elections and county officials acknowledged the ballot error but could not clarify its effect on the result. The Hawaii Supreme Court, following statutory procedures, reviewed the evidence and heard testimony from relevant officials.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii held that the presence of two ballots from outside District 43 in a tied race undermined the reliability of the result, and that the burden was on election officials—not the challenger—to show these ballots were lawfully cast. The Court also held that the tie-breaking method used by the Chief Election Officer constituted an unpromulgated rule, making the selection invalid. The Court concluded that no candidate was validly nominated and ordered that the primary be completed by a new vote, returning the choice to the voters. View "Souza v. Nago " on Justia Law

In a Republican primary for State Representative in Hawaii’s District 43, two candidates, Sheila Medeiros and Kanani Souza, each received 842 votes, resulting in a tie. No candidates from other parties or nonpartisans filed for the seat. Hawaii law directs that a tie be settled “by lot.” The Chief Election Officer conducted a tie-breaker by drawing names from plastic capsules placed in a basket, and Medeiros was selected. However, election records indicated that two ballots from District 40 voters were mistakenly cast in District 43, creating an overage that could potentially affect the outcome in such a close race.Following the tie-breaker and announcement of Medeiros as the winner, Souza sought records to clarify the overage. The Office of Elections and the City’s Elections Administrator eventually confirmed that the two ballots were issued in error to District 40 voters, but the record could not show how those ballots were marked or whether they affected the race. Souza filed an election contest in the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, alleging procedural violations and challenging the validity of the tie-breaker and the election outcome.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii found that the two extra ballots, whose votes could not be traced, rendered the result unreliable and that the improvised tie-breaker method was a rule adopted without proper rulemaking procedures, making it invalid. The court held that no candidate was validly nominated and, pursuant to its remedial authority, ordered a new election to complete the primary during the general election. The winner of this election would be deemed elected under the state constitution and take office on general election day. The court thus vacated the prior selection and returned the decision to the voters. View "Souza v. Nago" on Justia Law