Kapuwai v. City & County of Honolulu, Department of Parks & Recreation
Hawaii Supreme Court
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
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. NicholsHawaii Supreme Court · 2006
- Courbat v. Dahana Ranch, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2006
- Morgan v. Planning Department, County of KauaiHawaii Supreme Court · 2004
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.