Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Alaka'i Na Keiki, Inc. v. Matayoshi

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 2012No. SCWC-29742Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Opinion by

RECKTENWALD, C.J.,

Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part, in Which NAKAYAMA, J., Joins.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that agency decisions on protests regarding the procurement of health and human services are reviewable pursuant to the declaratory judgment statute, Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 632-1.1 As set forth below, I would hold that the legislature clearly intended to preclude judicial review of these protest decisions under the health and human services procurement code, HRS chapter 103F. I would further hold that preclusion of judicial review…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Johnson v. RobisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. SchorSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Leedom v. KyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  5. Switchmen's Union v. National Mediation BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1943

23 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