William Shaw Richardson

In this case, William Kalipi sought to exercise traditional native Hawaiian gathering rights on undeveloped lands owned by the defendants in the ahupuaas of Ohia and Manawai on Molokai, claiming rights under HRS § 7-1, native custom, and title reservations to gather items like ti leaf and medicinal herbs for cultural practices. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment against Kalipi, holding that he had no such rights because he did not reside within those land divisions at the time. The reasoning emphasized that while the Hawaii Constitution protects traditional gathering rights for ahupuaa tenants who are native Hawaiian descendants, these rights are limited to residents of the relevant ahupuaa, and Kalipi's residence in a nearby ahupuaa disqualified him.

propertycivil rights

The case involves certified questions from the Ninth Circuit concerning the effect of the Hawaii Supreme Court's prior McBryde decision on water rights in the Hanapepe River system, where private landowners challenged state court rulings that the State owns the waters and that only appurtenant and riparian rights are enforceable for private use on specific lands. The underlying federal action arose after the district court found portions of McBryde violated due process by unpredictably converting private property interests into public ones and enjoined their enforcement. The opinion recounts the history of the litigation, including the reversal of trial court awards of prescriptive and surplus water rights, and examines the evolution of Hawaiian water law under the public trust doctrine, which treats water resources as held by the State for the benefit of the people as later enshrined in the state constitution.

propertyenvironmentfederal power

In State v. Nuetzel, the defendant was convicted of murder under HRS § 707-701 after stabbing the victim multiple times, including excising his heart, following an altercation in their shared apartment. He appealed, arguing that expert psychiatric testimony established he suffered from mental disorders such as paranoid schizophrenia or personality disorders that substantially impaired his capacity to conform his conduct to the law or recognize wrongdoing at the time of the offense. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the ALI-Model Penal Code test for insanity properly reserves the ultimate question of criminal responsibility for the jury rather than medical experts, and that the evidence supported the jury's determination that any impairment did not meet the legal standard for acquittal. The court noted distinctions between clinical diagnoses and the broader legal assessment of responsibility, including the need for evaluations focused on the circumstances of the crime.

criminal law

The case involved brothers John Ray Vance and Michael A. Vance, who were each convicted of promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree after police found cocaine and secobarbital during preincarceration searches at the station following their arrests for assault in the third degree and disorderly conduct. The trial court denied motions to suppress the evidence and entered judgments of conviction, which the defendants appealed on grounds including lack of probable cause for the arrests, invalidity of the searches, breaks in the chain of custody, and failure to prove a usable amount of the drugs. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed both convictions after reviewing the record, holding that the officers had probable cause based on personal observations of the underlying offenses, that the searches were valid incident to standard booking and incarceration procedures, that the chain of custody was adequately shown, and that the statute did not require proof of a usable quantity. The court rejected the remaining claims as meritless.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a tort action by parents against Kaiser Foundation Hospital and affiliated doctors for damages arising from the death of their son, which they alleged resulted from negligence in examination, diagnosis, and treatment during his final illness. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found that the treating physician failed to meet the community standard of reasonable medical care by not detecting key symptoms like rales, ordering diagnostic tests, hospitalizing the patient despite contrary advice from another doctor, or prescribing effective medication, and that this negligence proximately caused the son's death from bronchopneumonia; it entered judgment for the plaintiffs. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, upholding the trial court's factual findings and conclusions regarding the breach of the standard of care and causation while addressing certain evidentiary issues raised by the defendants.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved a dispute over a rental agreement for property at 2927 Hibiscus Place in Honolulu, where the tenant, Harrington, allegedly tricked the landlord's agent into signing a lease that included a perpetual renewal option instead of the agreed one-year term with a single one-year option. The circuit court found that Harrington had committed fraud, reformed the agreement to reflect the original terms, and awarded the landlord $1,800 in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court upheld the finding of fraud based on the evidence of misrepresentation and the agent's lack of opportunity to review the documents, while addressing the appropriateness of the damages award and remanding for potential reduction of the punitive damages. The court rejected the tenant's claims of assault and battery by the landlord and his request for a long-term lease or reimbursement for improvements.

propertytorts & liability