Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kapuwai v. City & County of Honolulu, Department of Parks & Recreation

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided July 16, 2009No. 27915Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

NAKAYAMA, J.

I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that the ICA gravely erred because its opinion “regarding the issue of attorney’s fees and costs was not ripe for decision and constitutes an advisory opinion akin to the issuance of an opinion where there is no subject matter jurisdiction.” Majority opinion at 43-44, 211 P.3d at 760-61. However, with all due respect, the majority overlooks that this court has also issued advisory opinions in the past. See, e.g., E & J Lounge Operating Co., Inc. v. Liquor Comm’n of City & County of Honolulu, 118 Hawai'i 320, 350, 189…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State v. NicholsHawaii Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Courbat v. Dahana Ranch, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Morgan v. Planning Department, County of KauaiHawaii Supreme Court · 2004

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API