Paula A. Nakayama

This case involved Hawaii public employee unions challenging Governor Linda Lingle's executive order imposing three-day-per-month furloughs on state workers, including teachers, to reduce labor costs; the unions claimed the order violated constitutional rights to collective bargaining, retirement benefits, and separation of powers. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the circuit court had erred in addressing the claims directly, ruling instead that the Hawaii Labor Relations Board possesses exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes arising under HRS Chapter 89 governing public-sector collective bargaining. The court reasoned that allowing plaintiffs to recast statutory labor issues as constitutional claims would frustrate the legislative intent to have the expert administrative agency decide such matters first, following its precedent in HGEA v. Lingle, and therefore vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case arose when Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle issued an executive order imposing furloughs on state employees to address a multi-billion-dollar budget shortfall caused by the global financial crisis. The Hawaii Government Employees Association sued, claiming the furloughs violated collective bargaining rights under the state constitution and constituted an unlawful unilateral change under HRS § 89-9(d). The circuit court ruled for the union and enjoined the plan, but the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated that judgment. The court held that the Hawaii Labor Relations Board possessed exclusive original jurisdiction over the statutory prohibited-practice claims, and that the lower court should have allowed the Board to resolve those issues before addressing any constitutional questions. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that jurisdictional ruling.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by defendant Lawrence Corder in the Hawaii Supreme Court, seeking review of the court's November 19, 2009 opinion. The court denied the motion for reconsideration. A majority of the justices, including Nakayama, Duffy, and Recktenwald, ordered the denial without further elaboration. Justices Acoba and Moon dissented, indicating they would have granted the motion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Lawrence Corder's conviction for two counts of violating an extended order for protection issued against him. The Intermediate Court of Appeals had vacated the convictions, finding that the family court abused its discretion by denying Corder's request for a bill of particulars without considering whether it was needed to prepare for trial and avoid surprise. The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the family court did not abuse its discretion because the charging complaint identified the specific protective order, dates, and underlying police reports, copies of which had been provided to Corder in discovery, sufficiently informing him of the alleged conduct. The court reasoned that this information allowed Corder to prepare his defense without additional particulars.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

The case involves an application for a writ of certiorari filed by Sunstone Realty Partners XIV, LLC against Kona Village Realty, Inc. in the Hawaii Supreme Court. The court dismissed the application without prejudice because the Intermediate Court of Appeals had not yet entered its judgment on appeal, which is a prerequisite under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) and HRAP Rule 36(b)(1). The dismissal allows the petitioners to refile the application after the judgment is entered, in accordance with the timing rules in HRAP Rule 40.1(a). This ruling ensures that certiorari petitions are filed only after the intermediate appellate process is complete.

procedure

This case concerns an application for a writ of certiorari filed in the Hawaii Supreme Court in a matter styled In the Interest of A.W. The court dismissed the application without prejudice because no judgment on appeal had yet been entered by the Intermediate Court of Appeals. The dismissal rests on Hawai`i Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) and Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 36(b)(1), which require entry of that judgment before a certiorari application may be filed. The order notes that the petitioner may refile within the 90-day period allowed by HRAP Rule 40.1(a) once the judgment is entered.

family lawprocedure

The case involved two condemnation actions by the County of Hawai'i to acquire land owned by C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership for construction of a public bypass highway, which was tied to a development agreement with Oceanside Partners for the Hokuli'a project. The trial court dismissed the first action but granted condemnation in the second, leading to appeals on issues of statutory damages, subject matter jurisdiction under abatement, and whether the asserted public purpose was pretextual. The Supreme Court of Hawai'i held that a landowner is entitled to damages under HRS § 101-27 if property is not finally taken in a specific proceeding, that abatement does not apply when the relief sought in concurrent actions differs, and that courts should examine pretext claims despite deference to the government's stated purpose. It vacated the denial of damages in the first case for remand, affirmed the lack of abatement in the second, and vacated the judgment there to determine if the public purpose was pretextual.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved the resentencing of defendant Andrew Kamana'o, who had been convicted in 1983 of multiple Class A felony sexual assault counts including rape and sodomy. After prior sentences were vacated, the trial court imposed 20-year indeterminate terms with 5-year mandatory minimums as a repeat offender under HRS § 706-606.5, running some terms consecutively. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the ICA's upholding of this sentence, holding that the repeat offender statute permits consecutive mandatory minimum terms and takes precedence over the general concurrent sentencing rule in HRS § 706-668. The court reasoned that specific provisions control over general ones in this context and that the sentence did not violate due process or ex post facto protections.

criminal lawprocedure

The case State v. Pond is a criminal proceeding in which defendant Kevin Pond sought review by the Hawaii Supreme Court after an adverse lower court ruling. The court issued an order accepting Pond's application for a writ of certiorari. It directed that the matter be scheduled for oral argument, with the parties to be notified of the date by the appellate clerk. This order represents a procedural step allowing further review and does not address the underlying merits of the case.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Joseph Sunderland, who was convicted in district court of promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree for knowingly possessing marijuana in violation of HRS § 712-1249. Sunderland argued that his possession of marijuana at home for religious purposes was protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and by the right to privacy under article I, section 6 of the Hawaii Constitution. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Sunderland's constitutional claims lacked merit. The court assumed the sincerity of his religious beliefs but found that the state's compelling interest in prohibiting marijuana possession justified the conviction, and it rejected any broader privacy-based exemption for personal or home use.

criminal lawreligious liberty

In State v. Manewa, the defendant was charged and convicted of promoting dangerous drugs in the first and second degree after police purchased and seized methamphetamine from him and found additional quantities in his fanny pack. The trial court admitted expert testimony from a police criminalist about the weight of the substances measured on an analytical balance, leading to convictions carrying substantial prison terms. The Hawai'i Supreme Court reversed the Intermediate Court of Appeals and vacated the convictions, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the required drug weights beyond a reasonable doubt. The core reasoning was that the expert provided no foundation establishing the scale's accuracy at the time of weighing, as he did not test or calibrate it before each use and relied only on periodic manufacturer servicing and his personal experience.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a group of Hawaii public employees suing the trustees of the Employer-Union Benefits Trust Fund (EUTF) and the State over the EUTF board's adoption of a two-tier rate structure for health benefits plans, which replaced the prior system and allegedly disadvantaged some employees with dependents. The plaintiffs claimed the decision breached fiduciary duties and was arbitrary, seeking to overturn the board's choice in favor of a three- or four-tier structure. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court held that the trustees acted within their statutory authority under HRS chapter 87A when selecting the rate structure after considering consultant data showing minimal adverse impacts and alignment with existing collective bargaining practices. It further concluded that the board's process did not violate fiduciary obligations or other legal standards applicable to the EUTF's administration of employee health benefits.

labor & employmenthealthcaretorts & liability

This case involved a challenge by public employee unions, individual officers, and trustees of Hawaii's Employees' Retirement System (ERS) to Act 100, a 1999 state law that retroactively eliminated $346.9 million in employer contributions to the ERS for prior years. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the union plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, but the ERS trustees had standing and prevailed on the merits. The court ruled that Act 100 violated article XVI, section 2 of the Hawaii Constitution, which bars impairment of accrued retirement benefits, because the law removed protected funding sources and undermined the system's security, as shown by constitutional convention records and precedents from New York and other states. The judgment was remanded with instructions to dismiss the union claims and enter summary judgment for the trustees on their declaratory claim.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned Joseph Brescia's application to the Kauai County Planning Commission for permission to build a residence on his shoreline lot within a 40-foot setback line established in a 1983 subdivision map, after the Commission denied his request for a variance or amendment to allow construction as close as 31 feet from the shoreline. The circuit court had reversed the Commission's denial, but on secondary appeal the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the Commission's decision was supported by reliable evidence, including varying setbacks in the area and the availability of sufficient buildable area under the existing line. The court reasoned that Brescia could not reasonably rely on any prior representations by planning staff because the Commission held final authority over SMA permits and his deed expressly reserved the Commission's power to impose greater setbacks; it further concluded that Brescia lacked a vested property interest sufficient to trigger due process protections and had not been denied reasonable use of the lot. The Supreme Court therefore vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded with instructions to affirm the Commission's 2003 order denying the application.

environmentpropertyprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claimant who was accused by his employer of committing a fraudulent insurance act under HRS § 386-98(a)(8) by allegedly misrepresenting the extent of his work-related injuries, leading to administrative proceedings that suspended his benefits and imposed penalties. The circuit court dismissed the claimant's request for declaratory and injunctive relief, and the LIRAB upheld the Director's finding of fraud based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that such fraudulent insurance acts must be proven by clear and convincing evidence rather than a preponderance standard, vacated the LIRAB decision, and remanded for rehearing under the correct evidentiary burden. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment and rejected the claimant's other challenges regarding improper delegation of authority, constitutional protections, and evidentiary privileges. Core reasoning centered on the quasi-criminal nature of the fraud allegations requiring a heightened proof standard to protect due process interests.

labor & employmentcriminal lawprocedure

This case involved a taxpayer appealing a Board of Review decision on his 1989 general excise tax returns and assessments, including disputes over the amounts owed, penalties, interest, and allegations regarding altered filings, along with a statute of limitations claim for a potential refund. The Tax Appeal Court dismissed the appeal for failure to serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the Department of Taxation. The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case, holding that HRS § 232-17 and related rules make filing the notice with the tax court the act that initiates jurisdiction, while service on the assessor is not jurisdictional, and that the taxpayer suffered no prejudice from not receiving certified copies of the Board's decisions as required by HRS § 232-7. The court declined to resolve the underlying factual disputes over the tax amounts or alleged alterations, leaving those for the tax court on remand.

taxesprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether the Board of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement System of Hawaii (ERS) breached its obligations by providing confusing information to member Katsumi Honda about his retirement benefit options, leading to an election that his estate later sought to change. The Supreme Court of Hawaii had previously vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the matter to the ERS for further proceedings. On the ERS Board's motion for reconsideration, the court denied the motion, clarifying that the remand did not vest the ERS with authority to adjudicate contract or tort claims under HRS chapters 661 and 662, waive sovereign immunity, or exceed its statutory role under HRS chapter 88, but instead directed administrative proceedings consistent with the board's fiduciary duties to members. The court also addressed the effect of Helen Honda's death on the proceedings under appellate rules for party substitution.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved Susan Medeiros's appeal of a denial of unemployment benefits after her termination from a hotel job for grabbing a co-worker's neck and shaking her for about five seconds in anger over a schedule change. The circuit court had affirmed an administrative decision finding the conduct amounted to misconduct connected with work under Hawai'i Administrative Rule § 12-5-51, disqualifying Medeiros from benefits. On further appeal, the Hawai'i Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the employee's actions demonstrated a willful disregard of the employer's interests despite the lack of intent to harm or prior disciplinary issues. The court reasoned that the unchallenged factual findings supported the misconduct conclusion, distinguishing the incident from mere negligence or good-faith errors, and rejected arguments that the employer's zero-tolerance policy improperly influenced the outcome.

labor & employment

This case involved Helen Honda appealing the denial of survivor benefits under her late husband Katsumi's state employee retirement plan, after he selected the normal mode providing no payments to her and died days after retiring from his custodian position. The Hawaii Supreme Court determined that the ERS Board has a fiduciary duty to furnish clear information on benefit options, that its failure may have led to Katsumi's unilateral mistake or constituted negligent misrepresentation, and that the board's findings on his understanding were clearly erroneous. Exercising its supervisory authority, the court vacated the circuit court's judgment in Helen's favor and remanded the matter to the ERS Board for further proceedings consistent with its analysis of the record and applicable statutes.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a nurse at a state hospital who reported staff sleeping on duty and inadequate patient care, leading to her claims of retaliation and defamation by coworkers and supervisors. The plaintiff sued under the Hawaii Whistleblowers' Protection Act, free speech provisions of the state and federal constitutions via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, defamation, and civil conspiracy. The trial court dismissed some claims on summary judgment and directed verdict, while a jury awarded damages on defamation against two defendants; the Supreme Court of Hawaii vacated the directed verdicts on the whistleblower and related conspiracy claims against one supervisor plus an attorney's fees award, but affirmed the remainder of the judgment including the defamation verdict and damages. The court's reasoning centered on the sufficiency of evidence for the whistleblower claim and the proper application of standards for punitive damages and qualified privilege in defamation.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rightstorts & liability