Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In response to a question certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit the Supreme Court answered that the statute of limitations for a regulatory takings claim brought under the Hawai'i Constitution is six years pursuant to the catch-all statute of limitations in Haw. Rev. Stat. 657-1(4).The underlying dispute arose from the State Land Use Commission's (LUC) reclassification in 2011 of 1,060 acres of land in South Kohala on Hawai'i Island. In 2017, DW Aina Le'a Development (DW) filed this complaint alleging that the reclassification was an unconstitutional taking because the LUC failed to compensate DW for damages resulting from the land's reclassification. The federal district court dismissed the case, applying the two-year statute of limitations found in Haw. Rev. Stat. 657-7. LW appealed, arguing that the "catch-all" six-year statute of limitations applied to the action. The Ninth Circuit certified to the question to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations for a takings claim under the Hawai'i Constitution is six years pursuant to Haw. Rev. Code 657-1(4). View "DW Aina Le'a Development, LLC v. State Land Use Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this election complaint challenging the result of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OAH) at-large trustee election in the November 3, 2020 general election, holding that Plaintiff Keoni Souza did not provide specific facts or actual information of mistakes, errors, or irregularities sufficient to change the result of the election.Souza was a candidate in the OHA at-large trustee election. Keli'i Akina received the highest number of votes, and Souza received 1,623 fewer votes than Akina. In this complaint, Souza asserted five claims for relief, alleging, among other things, that Act 135, as codified at Haw. Rev. Stat. 11-158, is arbitrary and that a recount was warranted. The Supreme Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, holding (1) Souza failed to demonstrate that Act 135 is arbitrary or flawed such that the results of the OHA at-large trustee election would be different; and (2) Souza was not entitled to relief on any remaining allegations of error. View "Souza v. Ige " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the denial of relief and dismissal of Appellant's Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 petition, holding that Appellant was entitled to appropriate relief because Appellant's counsel was ineffective.Appellant was convicted of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree and prohibited acts related to drug paraphernalia. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. After the deadline had passed for filing a writ of certiorari, Appellant filed an application for writ of certiorari challenging the ICA's decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the application because it was untimely. Appellant then filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 40, alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because appellate counsel failed timely to apply for writ of certiorari despite assuring Appellant that she would do so. The circuit court denied relief. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) appellate counsel was ineffective; and (2) appropriate relief in this case was allowing Appellant to refile an application for writ of certiorari in his original case so that the Supreme Court can decide to accept or reject it on the merits. View "Villados v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question by concluding that, under Hawai'i law, a permissive user of an insured vehicle, whose connection to the vehicle is permission to use the vehicle to run errands and drive to work, was entitled to uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under the chain-of-events test because he was injured by an uninsured motorist.The Supreme Court determined that the proper inquiry under the chain of events test was whether a permissive user has retained a sufficient connection to the insured vehicle. The Court then held that, under the chain of events test, the driver at issue was entitled to UM benefits because he was a permissive user of the insured vehicle during the chain of events resulting in his injury caused by an uninsured motor vehicle. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Mizuno" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court ordered that this Court's August 27, 2020 order regarding temporary extension of the time requirements under Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 5(c)(3) for first circuit criminal matters is further extended until December 31, 2020, concluding that a further extension of the August 27 order was necessary.On August 27, 2020 the Supreme Court entered the order at issue, which provided that the first circuit may temporarily extend the time requirements for preliminary hearings no longer than reasonably necessary to protect public health and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because COVID-19 cases have remained high since then, the Court extended the order until November 16, 2020. Here, the Court determined that a further extension of the August 27, 2020 order was necessary and thus extended the order until December 31, 2020. View "In re Judiciary's Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak" on Justia Law

In this divorce proceeding, the Supreme Court adopted the California Supreme Court's test for voluntariness in premarital agreements (PMA) under the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA) and held that the family court did not err in enforcing the PMA in this case and that Wife's other asserted points of error were meritless.During the parties' divorce proceeding, Wife argued that she involuntarily executed the PMA prior to her marriage to Husband. The family court rejected Wife's argument and enforced the PMA. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals and the family court, holding that the family court did not err by (1) considering the custody evaluator's report in awarding full physical custody of the parties' minor child to Husband; (2) finding that the PMA was enforceable; and (3) failing to find that Husband abused the temporary restraining order process to gain advantage in the custody dispute. View "L.R.O. v. N.D.O." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that res judicata does not preclude a Haw. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment in a foreclosure proceeding and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's Rule 60(b) motion in this case.The circuit court found Appellant in default on her mortgage and granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent. Before a foreclosure sale took place, Appellant filed a Rule 60(b) motion, challenging Respondent's standing to bring a foreclosure action against her. The circuit court denied the motion. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed, ruling that res judicata precluded Appellant's post-judgment Rule 60(b) motion. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds, holding (1) res judicata did not bar Appellant's Rule 60(b) motion; but (2) the circuit court properly denied the Rule 60(b) motion because there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting extraordinary relief under Rule 60(b)(6). View "Pennymac Corp. v. Godinez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court extended an August 27, 2020 order for first circuit criminal matters, which was extended pursuant to a September 11, 2020 order, until November 16, 2020, determining that changing conditions wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic required flexibility and vigilance regarding the need to protect the health and safety of court users and Judiciary personnel.In July 2020, there was a surge of COVID-19 cases in Hawaii, included cases in community correctional centers and facilities, particularly at the O'ahu Community Correctional Center. As a result, the time requirements for preliminary hearings under Haw. R. Pen. P. (HRPP) 5(c)(3) was impacted. In August 2020, the Supreme Court entered an order providing that the first circuit may temporarily extend the time requirements for preliminary hearings no longer than reasonably necessary to protect public health and safety. In September, the order was extended. Because the transports of custody defendants from all O'ahu correctional facilities remained suspended and the exponential number of citations issued for Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 127A violations remained high, the Supreme Court extended the August order for first circuit criminal matters until November 16, 2020. View "In re Judiciary’s Response to COVID-19 Outbreak" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the Chief Election Officer's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's election complaint, holding that the Court could not grant the relief requested.Plaintiff Ashley Famera-Rosenzweig was one of four candidates in the democratic primary election for the office of U.S. Representative, District II in the August 8, 2020 primary election. Kahele received the highest number of votes in the election, and Plaintiff received the least. In her complaint, Plaintiff asked the Supreme Court to strike Kahele's name from the ballot, alleging that Kahele's voluntary assignment with the National Guard prior to the election was a tactical move to prevent all candidates from participating in appearances and debates with media networks. The Supreme Court dismissed the action, holding that Plaintiff presented no set of facts that would entitle her to the requested relief. View "Famera-Rosenzweig v. Kahele " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint contending that the Supreme Court should strike Kaiali'i Kahele as a democratic candidate for the office of U.S. Representative, District II, holding that Plaintiff presented no set of facts that would entitle him to the requested relief.Plaintiff Brian Evens was one of four candidates in the democratic primary election of the the office of U.S. Representative, District II in the August 8, 2020 primary election. The election results had Kahele receiving the most votes. In his complaint, Evans argued that Kahele conspired to deprive the other candidates of their right to a fair race and the public's knowledge of the candidates. The Supreme Court granted the Chief Election Officer's motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiff failed to establish that he was entitled to relief and that Kahele's name shall be placed on the ballot as the democratic candidate in the November 2020 general election. View "Evans v. Kahele " on Justia Law