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

The case involved a plaintiff who suffered injuries after falling through a hole in the floor of an unlit courthouse restroom, for which he had obtained permission to use from an on-duty officer. The trial court treated the plaintiff as a licensee as a matter of law and instructed the jury that the defendant owed only a duty not to harm him willfully or wantonly. On appeal, the court held that common law distinctions between licensees and invitees lack logical basis in modern society and ruled that an occupier of land owes a duty of reasonable care for the safety of all persons reasonably anticipated to be on the premises. The case was remanded for a new trial to determine whether the defendant breached this duty of ordinary care in maintaining the premises and warning of known hazards.

torts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff who sued her automobile insurance company and its agent after an accident, claiming they were negligent for failing to notify her of her policy's expiration or to automatically renew it. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, finding no legal duty to provide notice or renewal. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed, holding that state law requires all insurance contract terms to be in writing and that the policy contained no such provisions, so neither the insurer nor agent had a duty to notify or renew automatically. The court reasoned that imposing such a duty would violate the statute mandating written terms and that any requirement for notice should come from the legislature, not the courts.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over land in Hilo where plaintiff John Perreira claimed a life estate based on a 1946 oral agreement with family members that included rent-free use of part of a store building, though a 1948 deed omitted those conditions. Plaintiff sued to remove a cloud on title via adverse possession or to reform the deed after defendants demanded rent and eviction. The trial court found a life estate in plaintiff's favor. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed on the ground that the oral agreement became enforceable through part performance sufficient to overcome the Statute of Frauds, as plaintiff's actions in vacating and later reoccupying space were done with defendants' knowledge and consent under the contract terms.

property

The case involved a plaintiff's suit for damages from injuries sustained as a passenger in a car taken without permission by McCoy, the manager of a garage operated by defendant Onorato; McCoy was also sued, along with the car's owner. The trial court granted summary judgment to Onorato and the owner, entered a default judgment against McCoy, and denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the judgment against Onorato. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Onorato could not be held liable under respondeat superior because McCoy's unauthorized driving was outside the scope of employment, that there was no evidence supporting negligent hiring or retention given Onorato's limited knowledge of McCoy's record at the time of hiring and transfer, and that continued employment after the incident did not constitute ratification of the tort since the act was not done on Onorato's behalf.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned the applicable general excise tax rate for a newspaper publisher's advertising revenues under Hawaii law. The court held that the revenues were taxable at the general business rate under subsection H rather than the lower manufacturing rate under subsection A. The reasoning relied on principles of strict statutory construction in tax matters, where attempts to obtain a lower rate are treated like exemptions and construed against the taxpayer, as well as legislative intent from the 1939 amendments to broaden the tax base and prior precedent applying stare decisis. The court also considered the title of the amendatory act to support the higher rate application.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a negligence claim by plaintiff Lude Pattison Striker against defendant Roy Takeo Nakamura for personal injuries and vehicle damage after the defendant crossed into her lane on Ala Moana Boulevard, prompting her to swerve and collide with a utility pole. The plaintiff presented evidence of whiplash, medical expenses of $540.91, car damage of $107.73, and early menopause allegedly caused by accident trauma, supported by her physician's testimony. The jury returned a verdict of $307.73 for the plaintiff, which was below the undisputed special damages, and the trial court denied her motion for a new trial on damages. The Supreme Court of Hawaii held that the jury instruction improperly excluded consideration of the early menopause as an element of damages and that the verdict was grossly inadequate, indicating a possible compromise on liability and compensation, warranting reversal and a new trial limited to damages.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned a commercial lease for land in Honolulu under which the parties were to negotiate rent every five years, or else have it set at 6 percent of the land's fair market value as determined by three appraisers whose decision would be final and binding, subject to Hawaii's arbitration statute. After the lessors sued for a declaratory judgment interpreting the term "fair market value," the trial court ruled that the phrase meant the land's highest and best use unencumbered by the lease and denied the lessee's motion to compel arbitration. The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lease provision created an arbitration agreement because the appraisers' determination was given the effect of a court judgment and the contract expressly referenced the arbitration chapter; therefore the entire rental dispute, including the meaning of fair market value, had to be submitted to arbitration rather than litigated.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a breach of contract claim by the plaintiff, the former president and majority shareholder of Wahiawa Transport System, against Honolulu Rapid Transit Co. (HRT). The parties had entered into a Memorandum Agreement for the sale of operating assets that included a two-year non-terminable consulting arrangement at $12,500 per year. After the plaintiff performed limited services in April and May 1962 and received one payment, HRT made no further requests until a July letter directing him to report for duties; the plaintiff responded through counsel asserting readiness to provide advice on request while noting the parties' prior understanding that duties would be minimal. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff, finding he had shown readiness and willingness to perform, and the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the defendant's motion for judgment at the close of the plaintiff's case was waived by proceeding with the trial, that the July 19 letter was admissible for the limited purpose of proving readiness despite the parol evidence rule, and that the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Thelma Matsuo against her employer Highway Super Market, Ltd., and its insurer Pacific Insurance Company, for a back injury sustained while lifting a case of liquor in 1963. The circuit court awarded benefits, finding that Matsuo had suffered a compensable industrial injury and was totally disabled since March 1964. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, that notice to the employer was given as soon as practicable after Matsuo learned the injury was work-related, and that medical evidence confirmed her ongoing disability. The court liberally construed the notice requirement under the Workmen's Compensation Law to start from when the claimant becomes aware of its compensable nature.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs, owners of Savemore Supermarket, seeking to recover losses from thefts committed by defendant George Iwamoto, an employee of Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, who stole cigarettes while servicing a product display rack in the store. The trial court entered judgment against Iwamoto for compensatory damages but dismissed the claims against Liggett & Myers. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the judgment against Iwamoto but reversed the dismissal against Liggett & Myers, holding the company liable because Iwamoto's servicing activities, including ordering and delivering cigarettes, were authorized by and within the scope of his employment. The court reasoned that where evidence of an employee's scope of authority is undisputed, the question of employer liability is one of law for the court rather than the jury, and directed that judgment be entered against both defendants for the damages amount determined by the jury.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involved a contract dispute in which Cane City Builders, Inc. and its principals alleged that City Bank agreed to maintain the company's books in exchange for retaining the company's banking accounts, and claimed the Bank failed to do so properly while also mishandling funds. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Bank, relying on a purported release and finding no genuine issue of material fact. The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed, holding that the release was not properly authenticated under HRCP Rule 56(e) and thus could not be considered, while the plaintiffs' sworn answers to interrogatories created a triable issue regarding the contract's existence. The court also confirmed that a former director had standing to sue on behalf of the involuntarily dissolved corporation as a statutory trustee. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Hanawahine, defendants were stopped for speeding in a Lincoln Continental and subsequently arrested after officers observed firearms inside the vehicle using a flashlight during the stop. The trial court denied the defendants' motion to suppress the weapons as evidence obtained from an allegedly illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and the Hawaii Constitution. The court held that scanning the car's interior with a flashlight did not constitute an unreasonable search, that officers had probable cause to arrest based on their observations and prior knowledge of the defendants, and that the limited search was valid as incidental to the arrest for officer safety or to discover evidence of the crime. The defendants were convicted under the state statute prohibiting carrying deadly weapons.

criminal lawgunscivil rights

This case involved a dispute between a homeowner and an electric utility company over refunds related to the extension of power poles to the plaintiff's remote residence in Hawaii. The plaintiff paid $1,086 toward construction costs under an October 1961 agreement that provided for partial refunds based on line revenue over five years, and later arranged telephone service using the poles after a December 1961 letter from the defendant promising to refund payments received from the telephone company for pole use. The circuit court awarded the plaintiff only $270.80, treating the telephone company's $2,012.98 payment as partly offsetting the original advance under a single agreement. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the two letters created separate agreements, entitling the plaintiff to both revenue-based refunds of his $1,086 advance and an additional $815.20 from the telephone company's payment for the new poles, without crediting it against the original refund obligation. The court based its decision on contract interpretation principles, including that writings forming part of the same transaction are read together but may establish distinct obligations, and remanded for entry of judgment accordingly.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a pedestrian who sued a construction company after tripping over a garden hose stretched across a sidewalk by the company's employees, alleging negligence in failing to warn of the hazard. After multiple trials with conflicting outcomes, the plaintiff appealed from a defense verdict, claiming error in the admission of physical replicas of warning cones and a flag (whose presence at the scene was disputed) and in the denial of a requested jury instruction on the defendants' duty of care. The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed, holding that introducing the replicas was prejudicial because it resolved a key factual dispute for the jury and that the trial court erred in refusing the instruction since it was not adequately covered by other instructions given. The core reasoning centered on the need for fair presentation of disputed evidence and accurate jury instructions on negligence standards.

torts & liabilityprocedure