Overturf v. State
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2010-04-01
In this case, Jacqueline Overturf appealed the denial of her Rule 40 petition for post-conviction relief, challenging her 2001 no-contest pleas to two counts of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree, unauthorized entry into a motor vehicle, and criminal property damage in the fourth degree. She argued that her counsel provided ineffective assistance by pressuring her into the pleas and that the pleas were not voluntary or informed, including claims that the court failed to advise her of potential out-of-state incarceration. The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii affirmed the circuit court's denial of the petition, holding that Overturf failed to demonstrate specific errors by counsel reflecting a lack of skill or diligence, and that the extensive plea colloquy showed her pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, with no manifest injustice warranting withdrawal. The court noted that unchallenged findings of fact bound the parties and applied standards from cases like Briones v. State and State v. Cornelio. Topics include criminal law and procedure.
criminal lawprocedure
Stop Rail Now v. De Costa
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2009-12-30
Stop Rail Now and affiliated groups and individuals submitted a petition signed by over 49,000 voters proposing an ordinance to prohibit trains or rail transit in Honolulu and sought to place the measure on the 2008 general election ballot through the initiative process under the Revised Charter of the City and County of Honolulu. The City Clerk declined to accept and process the petition due to timing restrictions on special initiative elections, prompting Stop Rail to file suit in circuit court seeking mandamus, declaratory, and injunctive relief. The circuit court ordered the petition filed and processed but, after further proceedings, the Hawaii Supreme Court addressed the signature requirements. The court held that the charter provisions were ambiguous, that section 3-402 sets the applicable threshold signature requirement for initiative petitions, and that section 3-404(3) could not be read to override that threshold; because the petition did not meet the section 3-402(1) requirement, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the City Clerk on the remaining claims and declined to order the measure on the ballot.
elections
KEMPER & WATTS v. Ching
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2009-12-29
This case involved a dispute between the law firm Kemper & Watts and client Gordon Ching, individually and as personal representative of his mother's estate, over unpaid legal fees and costs. After the parties agreed to arbitrate under Hawaii State Bar Association rules, an arbitrator awarded the firm approximately $99,748.73, which the circuit court confirmed in an amended judgment. Ching appealed, challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement, a claimed public policy violation, and the arbitrator's calculation of fees, while the firm cross-appealed the denial of its request for attorney fees incurred in confirming the award. The Intermediate Court of Appeals rejected Ching's arguments, finding consent to arbitration, no established public policy breach, and that the arbitrator acted within his authority. The court vacated the judgment in part and remanded for the circuit court to explain its denial of confirmation-related fees under HRS § 658A-25.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Fisher v. Grove Farm Co., Inc.
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2009-12-29 · cited 13×
The case concerned minority shareholders' challenge to the 2000 acquisition of cash-strapped Grove Farm Company by ALPS Acquisition Sub, Inc., a company owned by the son of a partner in the law firm advising Grove Farm, with claims including breaches of fiduciary duty, fraud, conspiracy, and conflicts of interest by directors and the firm. The circuit court entered judgments in favor of defendants on multiple counts of the second amended complaint through rulings such as summary judgment for Daniel Case, judgment on the pleadings for Grove Farm, judgments as a matter of law for former directors on fraud and punitive damages claims, and dismissal of certain plaintiffs' claims. On consolidated appeals, the appellate court reviewed challenges to the application of the business judgment rule, evidentiary exclusions, jury instructions, dismissals, and cost awards under HRCP Rule 54(d). The court addressed these based on Hawaii corporate statutes, including exculpatory provisions limiting director liability for duty-of-care breaches under HRS § 415-48.5, and procedural standards for motions and judgments.
business & regulatoryprocedure
State v. Townsley
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2009-12-22
This case involved Jonathan Lee Townsley appealing his conviction for Theft in the Third Degree under Hawaii law after a jury trial in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. Townsley argued that the trial court improperly admitted his statement "Can you just trespass us?" as evidence, along with a witness's opinion on it, claiming violations of hearsay rules, relevance standards, undue prejudice, and prohibitions on character evidence. The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii reviewed the record, briefs, and applicable law, determining that these claims of error lacked merit. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.
criminal law
Garner v. State, Department of Education
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2009-12-16 · cited 13×
This case involves consolidated class actions by substitute teachers against the Hawaii Department of Education alleging underpayment of wages in violation of statutory and contractual obligations, with claims for back pay spanning from 1996 onward. The court addressed multiple interlocutory orders on issues including sovereign immunity, statutes of limitations under HRS §§ 661-1 and 661-5, class modification, intervention, and prejudgment interest. It held that claims for pay prior to November 8, 2000, were barred by the statute of limitations, but claims from that date through June 30, 2005, were not, that sovereign immunity did not bar the breach-of-contract claims, that HRS § 302A-624(e) provided a basis for jurisdiction as a pay-mandating statute, and that the DOE had violated its obligation to pay the prescribed per diem rate during the allowable period; it also upheld denials of class modification, intervention, and prejudgment interest. The reasoning centered on interpretations of Hawaii Revised Statutes governing state contract claims, periodic pay accrual for limitations purposes, and procedural rules for amendments and class actions.
labor & employmentprocedure