Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this opinion, the Supreme Court answered two certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concerning the relationship between Hawaii's general long-arm statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. 634-35, and the personal jurisdiction limitations of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.Plaintiff, a Hawaii resident, brought a product liability action against two out-of-state corporations in Hawai'i state court. The suit was removed to the United States District court for the District of Hawaii, which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiff's claims did not "arise out of" Defendants' activities. The Ninth Circuit certified questions to the Supreme Court regarding the reach of Hawaii's long-arm statute. The Supreme Court answered (1) a Hawaii court may assert personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporate defendant if the plaintiff's injury "relates to" but does not "arise from" the defendant's in-state acts enumerated in Hawaii's general long-arm statute; and (2) a Hawaii court may assert personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in light of Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S.Ct. 1017 (2021). View "Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming the judgment of the family court adjudicating Minor as a law violator for sexually assaulting the nine-year-old complaining witness (CW), holding that the exclusion of certain evidence proffered in this case was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.On appeal, Minor argued that the family court erred in excluding his proffered extrinsic evidence of CW's past false sexual assault allegations and by failing to make a preliminary determination as to the truth or falsity of those past sexual assault allegations. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment on appeal and the family court's decree, holding (1) if a defendant seeks to admit a complaining witness's false allegations of sexual assault, admissibility of such evidence is not subject to Haw. R. Evid. 412; and (2) the family court abused its discretion by excluding the proffered evidence based on the procedural requirements of Rule 412. View "In re GH" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) in this criminal case, holding that because the information omitted the crime of forgery in the second degree's states of mind, it failed to state an offense as to counts 4-7 and violated Defendant's right to due process.Defendant was charged via information with four counts of forgery in the second decree. Defendant filed a pretrial motion to dismiss counts 4-7 charging him with forgery in the second degree because the information omitted forgery's states of mind. In response, the State argued that intent to defraud is an element, understandable to the common person, and gave notice to Defendant of forgery's state of mind. The circuit court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss. The ICA reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant's information did not identify forgery's states of mind, intentionally and knowingly; and (2) therefore, counts 4-7 failed to state an offense and violated Defendant's right to due process. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the environmental court's orders granting partial summary judgment and the ensuing order entering final judgment in favor of the Department of Water, County of Kaua'i (KDOW) in this transfer case addressing the required scope of environmental review under the Hawai'i Environmental Police Act (HEPA) and its administrative rules, holding that KDOW must prepare a new environmental assessment (EA) that complies with HEPA and its administrative rules.KDOW proposed to install an eighteen-inch-diamter water transmission in the Lihu'e area (relief line) that would run 9,000 feet in length and connect to existing KDOW water lines on each end. Pursuant to HEPA, KDOW published a final environmental assessment (FEA) for the relief line and made a finding of no significant impact. Plaintiff challenged the FEA in the environmental court, and the court granted summary judgment for KDOW. The Supreme Court vacated the decision below, holding that KDOW did not properly analyze the impact of water withdrawals facilitated by the relief line and may have improperly segmented the relief line from planned development projects and a water treatment facility project. View "Kia’i Wai O Wai’Ale’Ale v. Dep't of Water, County of Kaua'i" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated in part the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals and the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se Haw. R. Penal P. 40 petition challenging the sentencing court's judgment of conviction and sentence, holding that some of the grounds of Appellant's petition raised civil claims required to be transferred for disposition under the civil rules.Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple drug, theft, and firearm-related offenses, and the circuit court imposed concurrent prison terms and various monetary assessments. In his HRPP Rule 40 petition Appellant raised eight grounds challenging his conviction and sentence. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing, and the intermediate court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court properly dismissed grounds one through five of Appellant's petition based on waiver; but (2) Appellant raised a colorable claim as to the monetary assessments; and (3) grounds six through eight raised civil claims required to be transferred for disposition under civil rules pursuant to HRPP Rule 40(c)(3). View "Warner v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges against him of, among other things, second-degree murder, holding that the State's prosecution of Defendant was unlawful under Haw. Rev. Stat. 801-1.On appeal from his convictions, Defendant argued that the State violated Haw. Rev. Stat. 801-1 by using the complaint and preliminary hearing process to prosecute him for second-degree murder, attempted murder in the first and second degree, and use of a firearm in the commission of a separate felony, holding (1) under section 801-1, criminal defendants cannot be "subject to be tried and sentenced to be punished in any court" for an alleged offense without an indictment or information, unless the charged offense is contempt or within the jurisdiction of the district court; and (2) defendants are "subject to be tried and sentenced to be punished" at arraignment. View "State v. Obrero" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this matter that was submitted as a letter and construed as an election contest complaint, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.Plaintiff Ralph Cushnie and a group of thirty voters brought his action asserting that two audits were performed for the 2022 Primary Election that did not satisfy the requirements of Haw. Rev. Stat. 16-42 and requesting that the certification of the 2022 Primary Election be halted until a manual recount could be conducted. Defendant State of Hawaii - Chief Election Officer filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs' requested remedy was not a remedy authorized by Haw. Rev. Stat. 11-173.5(b). View "Cushnie v. State, Chief Election Officer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this election complaint brought by Plaintiff Jay Dee Penn, holding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Plaintiff brought this complaint asserting inaccurate reporting violations of law relating to election fraud, ballot irregularities, inadequate ballot security and voter discrimination and suppression. As relief, Plaintiff requested, among other things, that all 2022 primary election ballots be preserved for almost two years for further review and delaying the certification of the 2022 primary election until a statewide audit and recount could take place. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, holding that the remedies sought by Plaintiff were not authorized by Haw. Rev. Stat. 11-173.5(b). View "Penn v. State, Office of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's election complaint seeking a manual recount of the ballots cast in the 2022 Republican Primary Election for the House District 45 seat and an order requiring certain requests to be granted, holding that Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.Plaintiff Carlotta Oquendo, one of the three Primary Election Republican Party candidates in the House District 45 race, filed a complaint requesting that an order be issued requiring a manual recount of the race and an order requiring certain requests be granted to restore public confidence in the integrity of Hawaii elections. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiff's requests were not authorized by Haw. Rev. Stat. 11-173.5(b). View "Oquendo v. State, Office of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that class action tolling applies to Haw. Rev. Stat. 46-72 and that a class action complaint may therefore satisfy the statue's notice requirement and that the availability of class action tolling turns on whether the class action provided the defendant notice of the subject matter and potential size of the litigation at issue.Plaintiff Hakim Ouansafi filed a putative class action lawsuit against the City and County of Honolulu alleging that Honolulu's failure to inspect and maintain its storm and drainage system caused him and other Honolulu residents to be injured by the April 2018 flood. Ouansafi then settled on an individual basis with Honolulu. The district court denied class certification, after which individuals affected by the 2018 flood brought twelve separate actions against Honolulu. At issue was whether the' suits were timely. The Supreme Court held that class action tolling applied to the individual suits because the Ouansafi complaint satisfied tolled the statute of limitations applicable to the individual suits. View "Coles v. City & County of Honolulu" on Justia Law