Hawaii Appellate Opinions

BISCHOFF v. COOK

No. 26660 (March 31, 2008)

Opinion [pdf]

OPINION OF THE COURT BY FUJISE, J.

Plaintiff-Appellant David Bischoff (Bischoff) appeals from the final judgment entered June 1, 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (circuit court).  Final judgment was entered pursuant to the March 29, 2004 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Order) entered in favor of Defendant-Appellee Kimi Cook, formerly known as Kimi Cook-McKie (Cook), following a bench trial.

. . . .

Bischoff raises six points of error.

. . . .

Based on the above analysis, the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit's June 1, 2004 judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

PEROUTKA v. CRONIN

No. 27233 (March 27, 2008)

Opinion [pdf]

OPINION OF THE COURT BY NAKAYAMA, J.

Appellants Michael A. Peroutka, Chuck Baldwin ("Peroutka/Baldwin"), David P. Porter ("Porter"), and Ralph Nader, Peter Miguel Camejo ("Nader/Camejo"), and Robert H. Stiver ("Stiver") (collectively, "Appellants"), appeal from the first circuit court's April 5, 2005 final judgments in favor of Appellee, Kevin B. Cronin ("Chief Election Officer").  The instant case is a consolidated secondary appeal from the circuit court's April 5, 2005 judgments affirming the decisions of the Chief Elections Officer.  On appeal, Appellants present the following points of error: (1) the circuit court erred in determining that the procedures used in verifying signatures on Appellants nomination petitions are not unconstitutional; (2) the circuit court erred in determining that the review of Appellants' petitions by the Chief Elections Officer was not arbitrary or capricious; and (3) the circuit court erred in determining that Appellants were provided a fair administrative hearing.  For the reasons that follow, we affirm the circuit court's April 4, 2005 final judgments. [footnote omitted]

KAHO'OHANOHANO v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAII

No. 28324 (March 20, 2008)

Opinion [pdf]

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MOON, C.J.

Following a sixteen-day bench trial, defendants-appellants Department of Human Services (DHS) and State of Hawai'i (State) [hereinafter, collectively, DHS or the State] appeal from the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit's January 22, 2007 second amended judgment, entered in favor of plaintiff-appellees George Kaho'ohanohano (George), as next friend of his minor granddaughter, Dasia Marie Morales-Kaho'ohanohano (Minor), and Jarrett K. Kaho'ohanohano (Jarrett), individually as Minor's natural father, [hereinafter, collectively, the Kaho'ohanhanos] in this negligence action, awarding them $243,071.39 in special damages, $800,000.00 in general damages, and $77,369.80 in costs, for a total of $1,120,441.10.  Upon application by the Kaho'ohanohanos, the case was transferred to this court, pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-58(b)(1) (Supp. 2007) (governing transfer upon the ground that the case involves "question of first impression or a novel legal question"), on November 15, 2007.  Oral argument was held on February 21, 2008.

Briefly stated, two-and-a-half year old Minor suffered a fracture of the left femur on February 14, 2001 and life-threatening abdominal injuries two months later on April 16, 2001.  Both injuries allegedly occurred while Minor was in the care and physical custody of her natural mother, defendant Denise Morales (Denise), and Denise's then-boyfriend, defendant Daryl Ramos (Daryl).  Denise and Jarrett shared joint physical custody of Minor, who stayed with each parent on a rotating weekly basis.  Although the first injury was reported to DHS as a suspected child abuse case, DHS allowed Denise to continue her joint custody arrangement with Jarrett while DHS investigated the circumstances of Minor's injury.  DHS had yet to complete its investigation when the second injury occurred, which was determined to have resulted from child abuse.  Ultimately, Jarrett obtained sole legal and physical custody of Minor.

. . .

After a lengthy bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the Kaho'ohanohanos . . . The trial court also found DHS liable for damages resulting from the negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). 

. . . .

For the reasons more fully discussed infra, we affirm the trial court's January 22, 2007 second amended judgment.  [footnotes omitted]

Concurring opinion by Levinson, J. [pdf]; concurring opinion by Acoba, J. [pdf]

SMALLWOOD v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU

No. 27875 (March 14, 2008)

Opinion [pdf]

OPINION OF THE COURT BY LEONARD, J.

Plaintiff-Appellant Craig Smallwood (Smallwood) appeals from a Judgment filed on February 25, 2005 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court) in Civil No. 04-1-2315-12.  The Circuit Court entered Judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee City and County of Honolulu (City) upon the Circuit Court's February 23, 2005 Order Granting City's Motion to Dismiss Smallwood's Complaint (Order Granting Dismissal).  The Circuit Court based its dismissal of the Complaint on two findings: (1) that the claims set forth in the Complaint were previously adjudicated in Smallwood v. City, Civil No. 04-1-0974-05 (Prior Litigation) and, therefore, the Complaint constituted an impermissible "collateral attack" on the prior judgment; and (2) that the Circuit Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over certain claims set forth in the Complaint because Smallwood failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to those claims.

On appeal, Smallwood argues that the Circuit Court erred in finding that the Complaint constituted a collateral attack on the judgment in the Prior Litigation.  Smallwood does not challenge on appeal the Circuit Court's second finding that it lacked jurisdiction over certain claim in the Complaint based on Smallwood's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

The judgment in the Prior Litigation: (1) dismissed without prejudice a prior complaint by Smallwood against City; and (2) dismissed with prejudice certain claims for injunctive relief that were actually adjudicated on the merits in that case.  Smallwood's Complaint herein does not seek to indirectly set aside, invalidate, avoid, or impeach the judgment in the Prior Litigation through an independent action seeking an alternative form of relief or result.  Therefore, we hold that the filing of the Complaint did not constitute an impermissible collateral attack on the prior judgment.  The Circuit Court's ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over certain of Smallwood's claims was not an adjudication on the merits and, accordingly, the Circuit Court's dismissal with prejudice must have been based on the erroneous application of the collateral attack doctrine.  We vacate the Judgment and Order Granting Dismissal and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. [footnote omitted]

STATE OF HAWAI'I v. MAINAAUPO

No. 27764 (March 5, 2008)

Opinion [pdf]

OPINION OF THE COURT BY LEVINSON, J.

On December 7, 2007, the defendant-appellant-petitioner Mark K. Lopez filed an application for a writ of certiorari, urging us to review the memorandum opinion (mem. op.) of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in State v. Lopez, No. 27969 [hereinafter, "ICA's Lopez mem. op."], and, on December 11, 2007, the defendant-appellant-petitioner William Mainaaupo, Jr., filed an application for a writ of certiorari, asking us to review the ICA's memorandum opinion in State v. Mainaaupo, No. 27764 [hereinafter, "ICA's Mainaaupo mem. op."].  Although these cases are factually unrelated, they share a common legal question:  Whether the ICA erred in concluding that the circuit court of the first circuit correctly declines to instruct the jury on the mistake-of-fact defense, as provided by Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 702-218 (1993), in relation to charges of the offense of unauthorized control of a propelled vehicle, in violation of HRS § 708-836 (Supp. 2001), where the defendant claims a mistaken belief that the person who authorized his use of the vehicle was the registered owner of the vehicle.  Beyond this shared issue, Mainaaupo argues that the ICA gravely erred in concluding that the circuit court correctly instructed the jury that, under HRS § 708-836, the defendant had a legal duty to obtain consent to operate the vehicle directly from the registered owner of the vehicle.  And Lopez contends that the ICA gravely erred in concluding that the remarks made during closing argument by the plaintiff-appellee-respondent State of Hawai'i [hereinafter, "the prosecution"] regarded Lopez's post-arrest silence and his failure to produce a critical defense witness to corroborate his testimony were legitimate comment on the evidence and not misconduct.  We accepted Lopez's and Mainaaupo's applications on January 18, 2008 and consolidated the cases for disposition the same day.

. . . .

Accordingly, we vacate the judgments against Lopez and Mainaaupo and remand their cases for new trials.  [footnotes omitted]

Concurring and dissenting opinion by Acoba, J. [pdf]