Summary Of HAWSCT Opinion In The Turtle Bay/Kuilima Supplemental EIS Case: A Change In “Context,” But Not The Project, Enough To Trigger Duty To Supplement

Don’t feel like reading all 74 pages of the majority and concurring opinions in the Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS case (Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 28602 (Apr. 8, 2010))? You’re in luck — here’s a summary.

[Disclosure: although I did not participate in this case, two of my Damon Key colleagues did. They represented a party in the circuit court and filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court. Consequently, I will not be adding commentary, just summarizing.]

For a summary of the arguments of the parties, first check out our oral argument preview part I and part II, then check out our live blog of the oral arguments.

Here are the briefs of the parties and amici, both at the cert stage, and in the Intermediate Court of Appeals:

• Application for Writ of Certiorari

• Memorandum in Opposition (Kuilima Resort Company)

• City & County of Honolulu’s response to cert application

• Motionfor Leave to Appear and File a Brief as Amici Curiae (supporting theapplication) by Conservation Council for Hawaii, Surfrider Foundation,Hawaii’s Thousand Friends, Life of the Land, Maui Tomorrow Foundationand Kahea

• Response to Amici Brief (Kuilima Resort Company)

• Defend Oahu Coalition Amicus Brief (supporting the applicants)

• Land Use Research Foundation and Leeward Planning Confererce Amicus (supporting respondents)

Here are the merits briefs in the ICA:

• Opening Brief (2.5mb pdf)

• City’s Answering Brief (1.3mb pdf)

• Kuilima_Resort’s Answering Briefs (3mb pdf)