Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The County of Kauai Planning Commission approved a subdivision application for a Trust's development of land in Koloa, Kauai. During the Commission's consideration of the application, the parties assumed that a historic road (Road) that the Trust needed to breach to provide access into the subdivision belonged to the County of Kauai. Plaintiff filed a civil complaint alleging several claims against Defendants, including breaches of the public trust. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint because he discovered that the road belonged to the State and not the County and asserted two additional claims against the Trust for allegedly breaching the Road. The circuit court dismissed the claims, concluding (1) because the State had not given its approval to breach the Road, the issues raised in Plaintiff's complaint were not ripe; and (2) even if Plaintiff had claims that were ripe and severable, the court had the discretion to dismiss the claims in the interest of judicial economy. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's final judgment, holding (1) all of Plaintiff's claims were ripe for adjudication; and (2) the circuit court erred in dismissing claims on the basis of judicial economy. Remanded. View "Blake v. County of Kauai Planning Comm'n" on Justia Law

Pacific Lightnet, Inc. (PLNI) brought claims against Time Warner, asserting that it had been wrongfully billed by Time Warner for services that it had never received and that it was owed credits to its account from Time Warner based on assets PNLI had purchased, called Feature Group D claims. The circuit court entered judgment for Time Warner on all claims, notwithstanding a jury verdict in favor of PLNI on certain claims. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the Feature Group D claims based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and vacated the jury verdict on those same claims. PLNI appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the ICA erred in vacating the jury's verdict because it violated the filed-rate doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding (1) the circuit court erred in invoking the primary jurisdiction doctrine to dismiss this case; and (2) inasmuch as the filed-rate doctrine applied, the circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury that Appellant could not recover for any claims involving charges not filed within 120 days of receipt of billing in accordance with the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission and Federal Communications Commission filed tariffs. View "Pacific Lightnet, Inc. v. Time Warner Telecom, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with committing the offense of abuse of family or household members (AFHM). Defense counsel moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (1) the family circuit court lacked jurisdiction because Defendant was arraigned in the family circuit court rather than district court in violation of Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure 10(a); and (2) the complaint was insufficient for failure to define "physical abuse" or "family or household member." The family circuit court denied the motion. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) upheld the judgment of the family circuit court, holding (1) any impropriety on the part of the family circuit court with respect to the arraignment was harmless error; and (2) the charge was sufficient. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment and the family court's judgment of conviction and sentence and remanded to the family circuit court to dismiss the case without prejudice, holding (1) because the family circuit court failed to arraign Petitioner in accordance with Rule 10(a), the case must be dismissed without prejudice; and (2) the charge was sufficient inasmuch as it "fully defined the offense in unmistakable terms readily comprehensible to persons of common understanding." View "State v. Basnet" on Justia Law

A homeowners association commenced a judicial foreclosure on Defendant's condominium unit after Defendant failed to pay her association fees and dues. The circuit court subsequently entered a default judgment and foreclosure decree. On May 29, the circuit court confirmed the sale to a third-party purchaser. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration on the order and judgment confirming the sale. The circuit court did not rule on the motion within ninety days, and the motion was automatically deemed denied on September 5. On October 16, Defendant appealed the May 29 judgment. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) dismissed Defendant's appeal for untimeliness, concluding that Defendant failed to timely appeal following the deemed denial of a post-judgment tolling motion. Specifically, the ICA determined that Defendant should have filed her notice of appeal by October 5, thirty days after the deemed denial of her motion. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's dismissal order, holding that when a timely post-judgment tolling motion is deemed denied, it does not trigger the thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal until entry of the judgment or appealable order. Remanded. View "Ass'n of Condo. Homeowners of Tropics at Waikele v. Sakuma" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a passenger in an uninsured vehicle that was in an accident. At the time, Petitioner had a certificate policy issued by the Department of Human Services through its Joint Underwriting Program (JUP). The JUP Bureau determined Petitioner was entitled to receive benefits under the JUP and assigned Petitioner's claim to Respondent. Respondent, however, denied Petitioner's request for coverage because Petitioner's certificate policy did not include uninsured motorist coverage. Petitioner sued Respondent, alleging claims of, inter alia, bad faith. The circuit court entered summary judgment for Respondent. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed, concluding that an underlying insurance contract was required to assert a claim of bad faith against an insurer. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding (1) under the JUP, the insurer assigned to a claim owes the same rights to the person whose claim is assigned to it as the insurer would owe to an insured to whom the insurer had issued a mandatory motor vehicle insurance policy; (2) the insurer's good faith covenant implied in such motor vehicle policies applies to claimants under the assigned claim procedure despite the absence of an insurance policy; and (3) accordingly, Respondent owed Petitioner a duty of good faith.View "Willis v. Swain " on Justia Law

Respondents, the City and County of Honolulu and certain individuals, banned Petitioners, two stagehands, from working at certain City-owned facilities based on Petitioners' involvement in a charitable concert featuring the City's mayor. After a jury-waived trial, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of Respondents on all claims, including Petitioners' claims that the ban was unconstitutional. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the lower courts' judgments, holding that the City's ban interfered with Petitioners' liberty interests under the Hawaii Constitution and that the City failed to satisfy due process by instituting the ban without giving Petitioners notice and an opportunity to be heard. Remanded. View "Minton v. Quintal" on Justia Law

The University of Hawaii (UH) sought to construct an advanced solar telescope and observatory near the summit of Haleakala on Maui. Kilakila 'O Haleakala (KOH) opposed UH's conservation district use application to build on the project site to the Department of Land and Natural Resources (Department). KOH formally petitioned the Department for a contested case hearing on the application. Without either granting or denying KOH's petition, the Board of Land and Natural Resources (Board) voted at a regularly scheduled public board meeting to grant the permit. KOH filed an agency appeal. The circuit court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there had been no contested case hearing and concluded that KOH's appeal was mooted by the fact that the Board had subsequently granted KOH's request for a contested case hearing subject to a preliminary hearing on KOH's standing. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the lower courts' judgments, holding that KOH's appeal was not moot and that a contested case hearing should have been held, as required by law and properly requested by KOH, on UH's application prior to the Board's vote on the application. View "Kilakila 'O Haleakala v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res." on Justia Law

Defendant entered into a contract with Complainant for the purpose of remodeling part of Complainant's house. Complainant later discovered Defendant was not a licensed contractor, contrary to Defendant's representations to Complainant. Before the remodeling was completed, Complainant fired Defendant due to a dispute regarding the purchasing of materials. After an investigation, Defendant was charged with theft in the first degree and unlicensed activity. Defendant moved to dismiss the theft charge, which the circuit court denied. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed, determining that there was sufficient evidence for the grand jury to indict Defendant for first-degree theft given his misrepresentation to Complainant that he was an unlicensed contractor, which thereby induced Complainant to enter into a contract and pay Defendant $95,930 before ultimately firing him. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the circuit court and the ICA, holding that the evidence in this case did not suffice to establish probable cause that Defendant committed theft of property exceeding $20,000 in value because the State did not provide the grand jury with any specific amount of property of which Complainant was allegedly unlawfully deprived. Remanded with instructions to dismiss the charge of theft in the first degree. View "State v. Atwood" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two drug-related offenses. Defendant was then admitted into a drug court program but subsequently self-terminated from the program. The circuit court found Defendant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two terms of imprisonment to run consecutively for a total of fifteen years due to Defendant's history of "extensive criminality." The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to consecutive terms of imprisonment; (2) the circuit court properly considered Defendant's pre-sentence investigation report as a basis for the imposition of Defendant's sentence; and (3) Defendant voluntarily and intelligently self-terminated from the drug court program and waived his right to a termination hearing. View "State v. Kong" on Justia Law

Defendant, a medical marijuana patient, was arrested for possessing medical marijuana while passing through airport security at Kona International Airport. Defendant was later convicted of promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment and remanded the case to the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal, holding (1) Defendant presented sufficient evidence to trigger a medical marijuana affirmative defense in a stipulated fact trial, in which the parties stipulated that Defendant possessed a valid medical marijuana certificate and that the marijuana he possessed was medical marijuana; and (2) the conflict between a statute that allows medical use of marijuana, including transportation of such marijuana, and another statute that prohibits transportation of medical marijuana through any place open to the public, created an irreconcilable conflict that must be resolved in favor of Defendant.View "State v. Woodhall" on Justia Law