the appellate record, october 2014

The Appellate Record, October 2014

THE APPELLATE RECORDOctober 2014

MEETING PRESENTATION ROUND UP

by Bethany C.K. Ace (Section Chair, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert)and Rebecca Copeland (Law Office of Rebecca A. Copeland, LLC)

At our April meeting, we were fortunate enough to have recentlyretired Justice Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. give us his words of wisdom and ofexperience, in a presentation entitled “Trends in Hawaii Jurisprudence.”

Justice Acoba’s topics included the right to privacy (in both the civiland criminal context), standing in administrative law, and cases involvingthe public trust doctrine. Current and future trends in these areas include:

2014 HSBA Appellate Section Board:

Chair: Ms. Bethany C.K. Ace

Vice Chair: Ms. Mitsuko T. Louie

Secretary: Mr. Christopher Goodin

Treasurer: Mr. Robert Nakatsuji

HSBA CLE Liaison: Ms. Mitsuko T. Louie

HAWSCT Liaison: Mr. Matthew Chapman

ICA Liaison: Mr. Daniel J. Kunkel


• Determining the scope of the right to privacy in the civil context – forexample, HIPAA provides a federal floor/minimum to the right toprivacy but Hawai‘i can impose more stringent requirements;

• Further analysis on the scope of the right to privacy in the criminalcontext in light of continuing technological changes;

• Whether there will continue to be an expansion of standing inadministrative law related to “interested persons” – there is currently atrend toward a wider opening of the courts to allow more lawsuits, forexample, expanding the definition of a “final and conclusive” decisionby an agency;

• Further analysis of the current trend toward the expansion of theapplication of the Public Trust Doctrine (for example in Kauai Springsv. Planning Comm’n of the Cnty. of Kauai, 2014 WL 812683 (Haw. Feb.28, 2014), the HAWSCT recently set forth a formula for applying thedoctrine in water cases);

• Further elaboration of the intersection/overlap between the PublicTrust Doctrine and Hawai‘i rights cases (which often go hand-in-hand).

Justice Acoba also offered the additional information on appeals to theHawai‘i Supreme Court, practice tips, and advice:

• Nearly 50% of applications for certiorari that are filed in the lastfiscal year were accepted;

• On average, since 2012, the HAWSCT has issued 50 opinions peryear (2014 will be higher);

• Given the number of cert applications that are accepted and thelikelihood that a case will be scheduled for oral arguments, theHAWSCT is much more active now than in the past;

• To get your application for cert to stand out (and be more likely to beaccepted): be straightforward, be forthright; and make sure that yourarguments are supported by the law and the record.

• The court puts as much work and research into its analysis of a casewhere cert is ultimately rejected as it does in determining whether acase will be accepted;


• Amicus briefs can be helpful, and the court is open to allowing them ifa motion is filed.

Many thanks to Justice Acoba for yet another invaluable contribution to theappellate practice by sharing his insight!

At our May meeting, we jointly presented with the Hawai‘i FamilyLaw Section for a panel discussion on a variety of appellate practice issues forfamily law appeals. Our presenters were appellate practitioners Peter V.N.Esser and Rebecca A. Copeland, both of whom represent clients in bothgeneral civil appeals and family law cases. We thank the Hawai‘i SupremeCourt for hosting us in their courtroom to accommodate attendees for bothsections and our co-sponsors in the Hawai‘i Family Law Section for comingup with this unique cross-over presentation.

At our June meeting, we brainstormed on the current state of theHawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedures, potential ideas and thoughts foramendments to the Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although theSection does not specifically have influence over whether the rules may beamended in any particular way, they hope to present their ideas to theHawai‘i judiciary and the Appellate Rules Committee for consideration. Thediscussion at the June meeting was lively and produced a number of potentialideas. The members attending the meeting decided that the best course ofaction would be to form a committee of members to further explore the ideas,research any potential recommendations, and discuss whether and when the


ideas may be presented to the Rules Committee. The appellate membercommittee has not yet been formed, but the Section is looking into doing so in2015. If your have any ideas you would like considered, or have a specialinterest in serving on the committee, please let one of the Section's boardmembers know.

Also in June, the Section jointly presented with the Hawai‘i FederalBar Association a panel discussion of the visiting Ninth Circuit judges inbetween their hearings held on island. A big mahalo to Rebecca A. Copelandand her FBA counterpart for putting together this event!

At our July meeting, Elijah Yip, a partner at Cades Schutte, formerchair of the Litigation Section, and blogger at www.LegalTXTS.com, gave apresentation to the Section entitled “Social Media Ethics for Lawyers.” Elijahhas been a frequent speaker for the Section and we appreciate himcontinuing to keep us informed and updated on issues concerning technologyand social media relevant to our practices.

At our August meeting, Mark J. Bennett, a Director of Starn O’TooleMarcus & Fisher and former Attorney General of the State of Hawai‘i, andKenneth R. Kupchak, a Director of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert,regaled those in attendance with their “Appellate War Stories,” includinglessons learned and insight gained from arguing before some of the highestcourts in the state and the country.

http://www.LegalTXTS.com


The advice provided by these two seasoned attorneys included many helpfulpractice pointers, including:

You can’t be funny, only the judge can be funny;

If you are prepared, the worst that can happen is you lose (more orless);

For oral arguments, memorize 10-15 seconds of your introduction;

The judge is always right, and is your “senior” even if you are older;

More than 3 points is a waste of time – one key point is preferable;

Always be prepared, know your case backwards and forwards,including the record;

Always try to have one person to argue/present a coherent argumentinstead of splitting your time in a case where there are multipleattorneys/parties;

Your job is to help the judges understand your case.

We were happy to see a number of summer clerks from our members’ firmsbe able to join us before they returned to law school.

On September 26, the Appellate Section held its annual “Meet andGreet” at the Hawai‘i Supreme Court between the bench and bar.


Chief Justice Recktenwald thanked the Section for its continuing work andspoke on access to justice initiatives and the Court’s sessions in schoolsthroughout the islands. Greg Markum, President-elect of the HSBA talkedabout the Legal Legends program interviewing those with three-digit barnumbers:

http://hsba.org/HSBA/News___Events/Living_Legend_Lawyers/HSBA/News___Events/Living_Legend_Lawyers_.aspx?hkey=3e7ea2bf-5d9d-444b-8ec4-2a5703b2ad3f

This was another successful and well-attended event. Much food and fun washad by those in attendance (bar members, the judiciary, clerks and staffattorneys). Many thanks to the appellate judiciary and their excellent stafffor hosting this event!

http://hsba.org/HSBA/News___Events/Living_Legend_Lawyers/HSBA/News_


OPPORTUNITIES!!!

Call for Volunteers for the 2015 Board

We will be holding our elections for the 2015 Board at our annualmeeting on December 16 (see our announcement below). The Board is in theprocess of selecting the slate of nominees for the 2015 Board. The positions ofthe Board are Chair, Vice-Chair, Treasurer, and Secretary and there is a non-Board position for HSBA CLE Liaison. If you are interested in serving in oneof these positions or would like the Board to consider a fellow Sectionmember, please contact Section Chair, Bethany C.K. Ace [email protected].

Volunteers for Courts in the Community

The Hawai‘i Supreme Court will be holding its next Courts in theCommunity oral argument at Mililani High School on December 4, 2014 at10:00 a.m. Attorneys are needed to work with teachers and students tounderstand the case prior to oral arguments.

Volunteers will attend an orientation this month on October 29, 2014 at4:30 at the Mililani High School library where they will be provided with allthe information they need to know prior to meeting with theirstudents. Thereafter, volunteers meet with their students twice -- once toexplain the case and a second time to conduct a moot court. Attendance atthe oral argument is encouraged, but not required.

Available schools needing volunteers include: Mililani HS, Aiea HS,Moanalua HS, Radford HS, Leilehua HS, Waialua High, and Ho‘ala School.

This is not only a unique opportunity for the volunteer attorneys, butone for the high school students also! Volunteer attorneys will also be invitedto attend a post-oral argument luncheon with the Hawai‘i Supreme Courtjustices. Join us for the exciting and educational event!

If you are interested or would like more information, please email formerAppellate Section Chair Rebecca Copeland at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



MARCH-OCTOBER 2014

PUBLISHED APPELLATE OPINIONS

By: Christopher J.I. Leong (Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert), Rebecca A.Copeland (Law Office of Rebecca A. Copeland, LLC), and Bethany C.K. Ace (SectionChair; Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert)

In March 2014, the Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals issued 3published opinions. The following is a brief synopsis of those opinions:

Rodrigues v. United Pub. Workers, AFSCME Local 646, AFL-CIO, No.30286 (Haw. App. Mar. 13, 2014). After judgment was entered in federal courtagainst the former director of the union for breach of fiduciary duties under theEmployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the former directorbrought an action in state court seeking indemnification from the union. The ICAheld that the indemnification claim was neither expressly nor impliedly preemptedby ERISA. However, the director was not entitled to indemnification from theunion under a theory of vicarious liability because he was personally liable for thefederal court judgment due to his own negligent acts; the union could not be heldliable simply because it was his employer.

State v. Won, 134 Haw. 59, 332 P.3d 661 (App. 2014). In this operating avehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) case, the ICA held that a policeinquiry into whether a driver suspected of OVUII will submit to breath or bloodtesting pursuant to the implied consent statute does not constitute interrogation forMiranda purposes and therefore does not require Miranda warnings.


State v. Eberly, 134 Haw. 81, 332 P.3d 683 (App. 2014). The ICA affirmeddefendant’s conviction for third degree forgery for passing a counterfeit $20 bill to aco-defendant. While defendant argued on appeal that “U.S. currency” was notspecifically included in the definition of “written instrument” in Hawaii’s forgerystatutes, the ICA held that the counterfeit bill, as paper containing printed matter,fell squarely within the statutory definition of “written instrument” in HRS § 708-850(1)(a).

In April 2014, the Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals issued 3 publishedopinions. The following is a brief synopsis of those opinions:

Hussey v. Say, 133 Haw. 229, 325 P.3d 641 (App. 2014). In this quowarranto action challenging a state house representative’s title to office based onallegations he did not live in the district that he represented, the circuit courtdismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the ICA held that thecircuit court, not the county clerk, did have statutory jurisdiction to hear the quowarranto petition, and it vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

In re PP, 133 Haw. 235, 325 P.3d 647 (App. 2014). The family court hadfound that a minor violated HRS § 707-717(1), Terroristic Threatening in theSecond Degree. On appeal, the ICA concluded there was insufficient evidence tosupport the conviction because the minor did not possess the requisite “recklessdisregard” state of mind sufficient to impose penal liability and the minor did notutter a “true threat” that he intended to inflict bodily harm on the complainant, asrequired by the statute.

Hollaway v. Hollaway, 133 Haw. 415, 329 P.3d 320 (App. 2014). On appealfrom a modification of a custody award giving the mother sole custody regardingeducational decisions made on behalf of the child, the ICA vacated the family court’sorder because there was not substantial evidence to support the court’s decisionthat private school would offer the child better options than the public schoolalternative advocated for by the father. The ICA also held that the impassebetween the parties as to the education issue was sufficient to meet the “materialchange in circumstance” threshold necessary in a post-decree modificationproceeding.


In May 2014, the Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals issued 2 publishedopinions. The following is a brief synopsis of those opinions:

Malulani Group, Ltd. v. Kaupo Ranch, Ltd., 133 Haw. 425, 329 P.3d 330(App. 2014). A landlocked landowner filed a declaratory action seeking to establishimplied access and utility easements across adjacent property to a public highway.Summary judgment was granted for the adjacent property owner. On appeal, theICA held that prior unity of ownership required to establish an implied easementcan be satisfied if the government was the prior common owner of the parcels.Here, the prior common owner was the Kingdom of Hawai‘i.

NB v. GA, 133 Haw. 436, 329 P.3d 341 (App. 2014). In this interstate childcustody dispute, the family court declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground thatFlorida was the home state of the child. On appeal, the ICA agreed with the fatherthat the mother’s move to Florida did not affect the jurisdiction of the family courtin Hawai‘i because the family court had assumed jurisdiction over a previously-filedpaternity action without objection by any of the parties. Thus, the family courtretained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the custody proceedings despite themother and child’s move to Florida. The ICA vacated and remanded but instructedthe family court to defer any rulings “pending a determination as to whether it ismore appropriate for Florida to exercise jurisdiction” pursuant to HRS § 583A-207.

In June 2014, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court issued 1 published opinion andthe Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals issued 1 published opinion. Thefollowing is a brief synopsis of those opinions:

Jou v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 133 Haw. 471, 331 P.3d 449 (2014). After theICA denied appellate costs requested under HRAP Rule 39 after vacating andremanding a circuit court order in favor of Jou (the appellant), the Hawai‘i SupremeCourt vacated the order and judgment of the ICA pertaining to the denial ofappellate costs. The court held that a party that, on balance, prevails on the maindisputed issues on appeal is eligible for an award of appellate costs pursuant toHRAP Rule 39(a).

Kilakila ‘O Haleakala v. University of Hawaii, 134 Haw. 86, 332 P.3d388 (App. 2014). In this case, the Board of Land and Natural Resources grantedUH’s conservation district use application to permit construction of a telescope andassociated facilities at the summit of Haleakala, and UH determined that anenvironmental impact statement (EIS) was not required for the project. On appeal,


the ICA agreed that an EIS was not required because the telescope’s ManagementPlan would not have a significant impact on the environment, and it affirmed thecircuit court.

In July 2014, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court issued 3 published opinions andthe Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals issued 2 published opinions. Thefollowing is a brief synopsis of those opinions:

Gour v. Honsador Lumber, LLC, 134 Haw. 99, 332 P.3d 701 (App. 2014).Gour filed a workers’ compensation claim but failed to comply with an order of theDirector of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations to undergo anindependent medical examination (IME). The Director deferred determination ofthe claim until Gour complied with the order, and Gour appealed to the Labor andIndustrial Relations Appeals Board. LIRAB dismissed Gour’s appeal on the groundthat compensability remained undetermined and thus there was no appealabledecision or final order. Gour then appealed to the ICA, which held that LIRAB wasrequired to exercise jurisdiction over the appeal because delay until entry of a finaldecision by the Director would deprive Gour of adequate relief. Because Gourwanted to challenge the validity of the order compelling him to undergo the IME, norelief would be available if Gour could not appeal until he underwent the IME.

Panado v. Board of Trustees, Employees’ Retirement System, 134 Haw.1, 332 P.3d 144 (2014). Panado sought service-connected disability retirementbenefits after claiming she became permanently incapacitated on the job. Heremployer, the City and County of Honolulu, argued she was not entitled to benefitsbecause Panado could not establish the definite time and place of the injury asrequired by HRS § 88-79. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that Panado did notneed to establish the exact moment of injury because it was undisputed that theinjury occurred sometime during her work shift; thus, the time and place of injurywere neither vague nor doubtful.

Oahu Publications Inc. v. Ahn, 133 Haw. 482, 331 P.3d 460 (2014). In thisoriginal proceeding, The Honolulu Star-Advertiser and Hawaii News Now filedpetitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus relating to sealed transcripts ofproceedings that were not open to the public in the Christopher Deedy murder trial.The Hawai‘i Supreme Court dismissed the writ of prohibition as moot and deniedthe writ of mandamus but issued an opinion guiding trial courts in theirdeterminations to close court proceedings or deny public access to transcripts ofthose proceedings. The court held that the Hawai‘i Constitution provides the public


with a qualified right of access to observe court proceedings in criminal trials,although this right may be overcome if the trial court (1) articulates the interestprotected by closed proceedings, along with findings specific enough that areviewing court can determine whether the closure was properly entered, and (2)provides a reasonable opportunity to object. The defendant’s right to a fair andimpartial trial may be an interest overriding public access, but a hearing should beclosed only if specific findings are made demonstrating that (1) there is asubstantial probability that closure would prevent publicity that would serve toprejudice defendant’s right to a fair trial and (2) reasonable alternatives to closurecannot adequately protect defendant’s fair trial rights.

Cole v. AOAO Alii Cove, 134 Haw. 103, 332 P.3d 705 (App. 2014). In thisworkers’ compensation case, Cole was awarded temporary total disability benefitsby the Director of the DLIR Disability Compensation Division. The employer andinsurance carrier appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeal Board,which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal hadbeen filed without a signature. On further appeal, the ICA concluded that themissing signature was an insufficiency in the form of the notice of appeal, and not ajurisdictional defect; therefore, dismissal was not warranted. The ICA vacated andremanded the case, noting that the instant appeal could have been avoided hadLIRAB simply requested a signed notice of appeal to cure the defect.

Oahu Publications, Inc. v. Abercrombie, 134 Haw. 16, 332 P.3d 159(2014). In the underlying case, The Honolulu Star-Advertiser prevailed in aUniform Information Practices Act request for the list of nominees submitted by theJudicial Selection Commission to the Governor; the Governor appealed only theaward of fees and costs under HRS § 92F-15(d). The ICA dismissed the appeal suasponte after briefing was completed due to lack of an appealable final judgment. Asecond appeal was filed and the briefs were refiled. The Star-Advertiser prevailedon appeal with respect to the circuit court fees and costs, but was denied appellatefees because the ICA deemed a request for fees in the “first” appeal untimely. TheHawai‘i Supreme Court vacated and remanded to the ICA, concluding that the Star-Advertiser was not a prevailing party until after the “second” appeal was decided onthe merits. At the point that the “first” appeal was dismissed for lack of appellatejurisdiction, there was no prevailing party and the Star-Advertiser could not thenhave requested appellate fees and costs.


In August 2014, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court and Intermediate Court ofAppeals each issued one published opinion. The following is a brief synopsis ofthose opinions.

Balogh v. Balogh, SCWC-11-0001074 (Haw. August 7, 2014). Hearing thecase on certiorari, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that a quitclaim deed signed bythe parties prior to divorce that gave the wife 100% ownership in the couple’smarital resident did not control distribution of the property upon the divorce. TheCourt found that a separate marital agreement, a memorandum of understanding,was not unconscionable and thus enforceable, approving the standard applied bythe Intermediate Court of Appeals that for the unconscionability exception to applyin the absence of unfair surprise, the agreement must be “outrageouslyoppressive[.]” The agreement, giving the husband 25% interest in the property didnot meet that high standard (i.e., it was not “unjustly disproportionate”). The Courtalso found that for a marital agreement to be found involuntary on the basis ofduress there must be an “improper threat.”

State of Hawai‘i v. Kazanas, CAAP-12-0001011 (Haw. App. August 29,2014). The Intermediate Court of Appeals held that the trial court properlypermitted the State to introduce evidence of an incriminating statement made bydefendant-appellant Kazanas to a police officer because the police officer did notsubject Kanazas to “interrogation” for purposes of Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, and thatthe statement was not made in response to “interrogation.” After being arrested butprior to being given Miranda warnings, Kazanas had made an incriminatingstatement in response to “small talk” made by the police officer assigned totransport him to the hospital. There was no issue that Kanazas was in custody, butthe Court found that, under “the totality of the circumstances[,]” there was no“express questioning or its functional equivalent” (the definition of “interrogation”for purposes of Miranda and Article I, Section 10 of the Hawai‘i Constitution), theCourt being unable to conclude that the police officer “should have known that …her words or actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response[.]”The Court also found that the trial court did not err in permitting evidence of priorincidents involving Kazanas (used to rebut a defense that Kanazas had physicaldisabilities that rendered him incapable of engaging in the conduct alleged),Kanazas having opening the door to such evidence.


In September 2014, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court and Intermediate Court ofAppeals each issued one published opinion. The following is a brief synopsis ofthose opinions.

State of Hawai‘i v. Williams, CAAP 13-0001518 (Haw. App. September 22,2014). The Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated an order suppressing evidence.The evidence had been suppressed as unlawful fruit of an illegal arrest effected inviolation of the limitations contained in the bench warrant when arrest was madein a public park after closing hours. In interpreting the terms of the warrant, whichstated that it could not be executed “on premises not open to the public” (which wasbased on Hawai‘i Rule of Penal Procedure Rule 9(b)), the Court found that it did notlimit the execution of the arrest warrant to particular hours of operation (i.e., thelimitation referred to the location being public and not those hours the property istechnically “open” to the public). The Court remanded for further proceedings.

State of Hawai‘i v. Abel, SCWC-13-0000087 (Haw. September 24, 2014).Hearing the matter on certiorari, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that an elementof the offense “Solicitation with Animals in Waikiki Special District” under RevisedOrdinances of Honolulu (ROH) § 29-13.2(b) “is the use of a live animal to request ordemand money or gifts” (emphasis added). Mr. Abel had allegedly placed live birdsonto various people, took their photos with their own cameras, and received moneyfrom the people afterwards, but no witness or evidence was put forth that a requestor demand for money was made. The Court, using the plain meaning of theordinance and its legislative history, found that the request or demand for money orgifts was an essential element and the State was required to prove that a request ordemand for money or gifts was made (not just that an exchange of money occurred)in order to prove the offense. In applying this standard to the record before it, theCourt found insufficient evidence to sustain Mr. Abel’s conviction.

In October 2014 (through the date of publication) the Intermediate Court ofAppeals issued one published opinion. The following is a brief synopsis:

In re Grievance Arbitration between State of Hawaii Organization ofPolice Officers (SHOPO) and County of Kauai, CAAP-10-0000077 (Haw. App.October 16, 2014). The Intermediate Court of Appeals held that an arbitrationaward granting remedial promotions under the collective bargaining agreement(CBA) did not violate public policy, one of the exceptions to the general deferencegiven arbitration awards. The award allegedly violated HRS Chapter 76 and themerit principles for promotional management decisions. Using the legislative


intent in amending HRS § 89-9(d) to clarify “management rights” in the context ofCBAs and the CBA provisions granting the arbitrator broad authority to remedygrievances, the Court concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority andthat there was no violation of public policy to support vacature.

We typically don’t report on unpublished decisions, but Bailey v.Duvauchelle, CAAP-14-0000883 (Haw. App. October 10, 2014), is noteworthy forits analysis of appealability of post-judgment orders. The Intermediate Court ofAppeals reviewed the standard set forth in Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawai‘i 153, 80P.3d 974 (2003), that “[a] post-judgment order is an appealable final order underHRS § 641-1(a) if the order ends the proceedings, leaving nothing further to beaccomplished[,]” but that the separate judgment rule (HRCP 58 and Jenkins) is“inapposite in the post-judgment context.” However, the Court found that the orderat issue (an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment and an order of dismissal)was not a post-judgment order because there was not a “judgment” on the particularcause of action addressed in the order. Per HRCP 54(a), a “judgment” is “a decreeand any order from which an appeal lies[,]” and in an earlier appeal, the Court hadfound that the “judgment” failed to satisfy the requirements for a final judgmentunder HRS § 641-1(a), HRCP Rule 58 and Jenkins. The order denying the motionto vacate was held to be an interlocutory order eligible for review if a timely appealis made from the entry of a future appealable final judgment.


Stay Tuned For Upcoming Events!

We have exciting events planned for the last three months of the year,starting with…. BAR CONVENTION!

OCTOBER

Please join us Friday, October 24 for our Appellate Section Programat the annual HSBA Bar Convention. This year's Appellate Section Programwill feature numerous Hawai‘i appellate court justices and judges, includingHawai‘i Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald, Hawai‘iIntermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Craig Nakamura, former Hawai‘iSupreme Court Justices James Duffy and Simeon Acoba, Jr., andIntermediate Court of Appeals Judge Alexa Fujise. Other program speakersinclude Intermediate Court of Appeals Staff Attorneys and local appellateattorneys.

The program topics will provide attendees with an insider's view of theHawai‘i Appellate Courts, an in-depth analysis of criminal appeals inHawai‘i, and practical advice on how to comply with the final judgment ruleprior to filing an appeal.

This is a not-to-be missed program that will culminate with our popularappellate Q&A panel. And . . . attendees who stay for the whole morningprogram will fulfill their 3.0 MCPE requirements!

For more information, and how to register, see the flyer attached to thisnewsletter and visit the HSBA's website: http://hsba.org/

NOVEMBER

We are pleased to announce that our Wednesday, November 19meeting will feature Justice Michael D. Wilson, the Hawai‘i SupremeCourt’s most recently-appointed justice, as our guest speaker. Due toscheduling conflicts, this meeting will be held in the conference rooms of theCarlsmith Ball firm at 1001 Bishop Street #2200 (not the HSBA offices) andwe thank Section member Douglas S. Chin for hosting us.

http://hsba.org/


DECEMBER

The Hawaii State Bar AssociationAppellate Section and LitigationSection cordially invite you to our

JOINT ANNUALMEETINGDecember 1612:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.Pacific Club1451 Queen Emma Street, Mangosoutdoor dining

Guest Speaker: Chief Justice Recktenwald

Cost is $10 for Section Members by cash orcheck (payable to “HSBA Litigation Section”)collected at the door.

Please R.S.V.P. by December 10 to LitigationSection Joe Kotowski at [email protected].


Useful Appellate Links:

The Hawai‘i Judiciary: www.courts.state.hi.us

United District Court for the District of Hawai‘i: www.hid.uscourts.gov

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: www.ca9.uscourts.gov

United States Supreme Court: www.supremecourt.gov

Hawai‘i State Bar Association: www.hsba.org

Blogs by our Members:

www.hawaiilitigation.com (by our Member Louise Ing)

www.hawaiioceanlaw.com (by our Member Mark M. Murakami)

www.hawaiiopinions.blogspot.com (by our Member Ben Lowenthal)

www.insurancelawhawaii.com (by our Member Tred R. Eyerly)

www.inversecondemnation.com (by our Member Robert H. Thomas)

www.hawaiiappellatelaw.com (by our Member Charley Foster)

www.recordonappeal.com (by our Member Rebecca A. Copeland)

http://www.courts.state.hi.us

http://www.hid.uscourts.gov

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov

http://www.supremecourt.gov

http://www.hsba.org

http://www.hawaiilitigation.com

http://www.hawaiioceanlaw.com

http://www.hawaiiopinions.blogspot.com

http://www.insurancelawhawaii.com

http://www.inversecondemnation.com

http://www.hawaiiappellatelaw.com

http://www.recordonappeal.com


Appellate Resources:

HAWAII APPELLATE SECTION WEBSITE: The Appellate Section’s websiteincludes useful appellate resources, including handouts from prior monthlymeetings, copies of this newsletter, and power point presentations from theAppellate Section’s programs at the 2012 and 2013 HSBA Bar Coventions.www.hawaiiappellatesection.org

HAWAII APPELLATE PRACTICE MANUAL: The Hawaii Appellate PracticeManual (2012) includes information for filing appeals in Hawaii, including how to e-file documents on the Judiciary’s E-Filing System, how to supercede a judgment,and how to brief and argue cases. The manual also includes useful appellate forms.The Manual was co-sponsored by the Appellate Section and the Hawaii State BarAssociation, and is available through the HSBA.

FEDERAL APPELLATE PRACTICE MANUAL: The Federal Appellate PracticeManual (2013) includes valuable information and insight into practicing appeals inthe federal arena, with special emphasis on the United States Supreme Court andUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Manual was co-sponsored by the Appellate Section and the Hawaii State Bar Association, and isavailable through the HSBA.

HAWAII APPELLATE PRACTICE MANUAL SUPPLEMENT: “AppellateMotions Practice” a supplement to the 2012 Hawaii Appellate Practice Manual,offering insight and practice tips into state appellate motions practice, andincluding additional forms. The Supplement was co-sponsored by the AppellateSection and the Hawaii State Bar Association, and is available through the HSBA.

HSBA Publication List (effective January 13, 2014) can be found at this link:http://hsba.org/resources/1/CLE%20Flyers/Publications%20List.pdf

http://www.hawaiiappellatesection.org

http://hsba.org/resources/1/CLE%20Flyers/Publications%20List.pdf


Stay tuned for the next edition ofThe Appellate Record!

If you are interested in contributing to our newsletter in any way, please contact theSection’s Chair Bethany C.K. Ace at [email protected]

The Appellate Record is presentedas a courtesy to the Members of theHawaii State Bar Association’sAppellate Section by its Board.Mahalo and enjoy!


the appellate record, october 2014

Documents