Eviction moratorium on Maui Island ends on Feb. 4, 2025. For updates, click here.
Oral Arguments Schedule
Accommodation for a Disability
If you need an accommodation for a disability when participating in a court program, service, or activity, please contact the ADA Coordinator at the Supreme Court at phone number 539-4700 as far in advance as possible to allow time to provide an accommodation. You are also welcome to send an e-mail to adarequest@courts.hawaii.gov or complete the Disability Accommodation Request Form. The Disability Accommodations Coordinator will try to provide, but cannot guarantee, the requested auxiliary aid, service, or accommodation.
Oral Arguments
Case Details |
Court |
No. SCWC-20-0000172, originally scheduled for March 11, 2025, 10:30 a.m, has been rescheduled to April 8, 2025, 9 a.m. |
Supreme Court |
No. SCWC-20-0000286, Tuesday, March 25, 2025, 10:30 a.m. In re MOLOAA FARMS LLC, Respondent/Claimant-Appellant, vs. PAUL C. HUBER, individually, Petitioner and Respondent/Respondent-Appellee, ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF MOLOAA HUI I, PAUL C. HUBER as President of the Association of Unit Owners of Moloaa Hui I, ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF MOLOAA HUI II, and NED Y. WHITLOCK, as President of the Association of Unit Owners of Moloaa Hui II, Respondents and Petitioners/Respondents-Appellees, MOLOAA HUI Lands, Inc., Respondent/Respondent-Appellee, CANDACE L. STRONG, individually, Respondent and Petitioner/Respondent-Appellee and ERIC M. STRONG, as President and Chief Executive Officer of Moloaa Hui Lands, Inc., Respondent/Respondent-Appellee. The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at: Supreme Court Courtroom The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/. Attorney for Petitioner and Respondent/Respondent-Appellee PAUL C. HUBER: Attorneys for Respondents and Petitioners/Respondents-Appellees AOAO OF MOLOAA HUI I and PAUL C. HUBER, as President of the AOAO of Moloaa Hui I: Attorneys for the Respondents and Petitioners/Respondents-Appellees AOAO of MOLOAA HUI II and NED Y. WHITLOCK, as President of the AOAO of Moloaa Hui II: Attorneys for Respondent and Petitioner/Respondent-Appellee CANDACE L. STRONG: Attorneys for Respondent/Claimant-Appellant MOLOAA FARMS, LLC: NOTE: Order accepting Applications for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/26/24. COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ. Brief Description: On February 10, 1997, an Option Agreement was entered between Moloaa Hui Lands as “Seller” and Jeffrey S. Lindner as “Buyer”, with Michael R. Strong, Candace Strong, and Paul C. Huber listed as “Principals” of Moloaa Hui Lands (“MHL”). The Option Agreement indicates Lindner loaned $500,000 to MHL to fund the purchase of the Moloaa Hui Lands property, with the option to acquire a portion of the property. In March 1997, MHL recorded a Declaration that established covenants governing the Moloaa Hui Lands. Both the Option Agreement and the Declaration include arbitration provisions requiring disputes to be resolved under the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) Commercial Rules. In 1998, Lindner exercised his option and purchased the lands known as Lot 2. In 2010, owners in Lot 1 formed the Moloaa Irrigation Cooperative to develop a new water system. Moloaa Irrigation Cooperative received state funding to complete the project. On October 7, 2019, Moloaa Farms and Robert D. Lindner, Jr. filed a demand for arbitration against petitioners, along with Eric Strong, president and CEO of Moloaa Hui Lands. In the demand, Moloaa Farms asserted that the 1997 agreements entitle Lot 2 access to the new water system at cost and at terms akin to those of Lot 1 owners. Association of Apartment Owners of Moloaa Hui I and Paul C. Huber, as President of the Association of Unit Owners of Moloaa Hui I; Association of Apartment Owners of Moloaa Hui II and Ned Y. Whitlock, as President of the Association of Unit Owners of Moloaa Hui II, as well as Candace L. Strong and Paul C. Huber, separately, contested the arbitration, through Motions to Stay and/or Terminate Arbitration and a Motion to Determine Existence and Validity of an Agreement to Arbitrate. The circuit court terminated the arbitration, granting all three motions. The ICA vacated the circuit court’s orders terminating arbitration, holding the arbitration agreements to be valid and the disputes arbitrable. The questions raised concern whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clauses, and whether the clauses bind all the named parties. In their petitions for certiorari, the petitioners argue the ICA erred when it divested the circuit court of jurisdiction over the dispute. Additionally, the parties ask whether the dispute is one respecting water rights under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 664-32 and § 664-33, and whether these statutes confer exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes to the circuit court. |
Supreme Court |
No. SCAP-23-0000453, Tuesday, March 25, 2025, 2 p.m. CASEY CAMERON EASON, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent-Appellant. The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at: Supreme Court Courtroom The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/. Attorney for Respondent-Appellant STATE OF HAWAI‘I: Attorney for Petitioner-Appellee CASEY CAMERON EASON: NOTE: Order granting application for transfer, filed 05/06/24. COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ. Brief Description: In 2004, Defendant-Appellee Casey Cameron Eason (Eason) pled no contest to Murder in the Second Degree under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-701.5 during a March 31, 2004 hearing in the Circuit Court for the Third Circuit (Circuit Court). In 2021, Eason filed a Hawai‘i Rule of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 Petition for post-conviction relief. On various grounds, he claims that his plea on March 31, 2004 was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made. By this time, no transcript or verbatim record existed from the 2004 hearing. Nearly twenty years after Eason was sentenced, the Circuit Court granted Eason’s Rule 40 Petition. The court held the State did not meet its burden to show that Eason’s change of plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made; and that Eason’s due process rights were violated because there had not been an affirmative determination of Eason’s fitness prior to accepting his no contest plea. The Circuit Court also held that, although Eason previously filed Rule 40 petitions, there are extraordinary circumstances in this case sufficient to warrant overriding Rule 40’s waiver provision. Eason’s conviction was vacated and he was returned to “no bail” status until further order of the Court. The State appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, and this case was then transferred to the supreme court. The State asserts the following:
|
Supreme Court |
No. SCWC-20-0000172, Tuesday, April 8, 2025, 9 a.m. CARRIE N. NOBORIKAWA, Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant/Appellant, vs. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent/Employer-Appellee/Appellee, and ACE INSURANCE CO., adjusted by Corvel Corporation, Respondent/Insurance Carrier-Appellee/Appellee. The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at: Supreme Court Courtroom The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/. Attorney for Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant/Appellant CARRIE N. NOBORIKAWA: Wayne H. Mukaida Attorneys for Respondent/Employer-Appellee/Appellee HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC. and Insurance Carrier-Appellee-Appellee ACE INSURANCE CO., adjusted by Corvel Corporation: Jacqueline W. S. Amai of the Law Office of Jacqueline W.S. Amai NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 02/04/25. NOTE: Order granting motion to continue to later date filed 02/21/25. NOTE: Amended Notice of Setting for Oral Argument, now rescheduled to 04/08/25 at 9:00 AM, filed 02/21/25. COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ. Brief Description: This case involves an appeal from a Labor Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB) workers’ compensation partial permanent disability (PPD) decision. In 2007, Petitioner Noborikawa suffered a bilateral knee injury while working for Respondent Host International, Inc. as an airport restaurant and bar manager. A doctor determined Noborikawa had a 5% impairment of the right knee, and 0% impairment of the left knee. The Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) Disability Compensation Division (DCD) determined Noborikawa had a PPD of 7% of the right knee and 0% of the left knee. Noborikawa appealed to LIRAB. She argued that she should have received a 20% PPD rating for her right knee and 7% rating for her left knee. The LIRAB majority awarded 8% for the right knee and 3% for the left knee. LIRAB’s chair dissented. He stated he would have awarded 20% for the right knee, and 5% for the left knee. Noborikawa appealed to the ICA. She argued that LIRAB (1) failed to consider her permanent disability preventing her from returning to her former restaurant and bar manager duties; (2) failed to sufficiently explain how it reached its PPD decision; (3) erroneously relied on her vocational rehabilitation and re-employment as a medical coder or biller to award a lower PPD; and (4) improperly conflated PPD awards with Temporary Total Disability indemnity benefits in contravention of Hawaiʻi Supreme Court precedent, Ihara v. State of Hawaiʻi, Department of Land and Natural Resources. The ICA affirmed LIRAB’s decision. It held that LIRAB did not err in its decision-making and sufficiently explained how it reached its PPD award. Noborikawa argues to this court that the ICA gravely erred. |
Supreme Court |
No. SCWC-23-0000388, Tuesday, April 8, 2025, 10:30 a.m. STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent and Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JONATHAN P. SPIES, Petitioner and Respondent/Defendant-Appellant. The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at: Supreme Court Courtroom The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/. Attorneys for Petitioner and Respondent/Defendant-Appellant JONATHAN P. SPIES: Michael H. Schlueter, Jason R. Kwiat, Andrew M. Kennedy, Nicole K. Bowman and Eli N. Bowman of Schlueter, Kwiat & Kennedy LLLP Attorneys for Respondent and Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I: Charles E. Murray III and Kauanoe A. Jackson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 01/08/25. NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Dyan M. Medeiros, in place of Devens, J., recused, filed 01/28/25. NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 01/29/25. NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 02/20/25. COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Medeiros, in place of Devens, J., recused. Brief Description: The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated Jonathan P. Spies’ conviction for Promotion of a Dangerous Drug in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1241(1)(a) because the State failed to establish sufficient foundation to qualify its expert for the admission of scientific test results confirming the composition and weight of substances recovered from Spies’ vehicle. The ICA remanded the case for a new trial. In his application for writ of certiorari, Spies raises multiple constitutional violations that he argues warrant the exclusion of incriminatory evidence on remand: (1) custodial interrogation in violation in Miranda; (2) prolonged detention; (3) warrantless seizure of his vehicle; (4) insufficient probable cause to support a search warrant of his person; (5) defective charging documents; (6) material omissions regarding qualification of canine used in sniff search; and (7) a warrantless, trespassory canine sniff search. Spies also alleges (8) an alternate theory for insufficient foundation for the scientific test results, should the Hawai‘i Supreme Court overrule the ICA. In its cross-application, the State presents a single question: did the ICA apply the incorrect evidentiary standard to qualify the State’s expert witness for purposes of laying a foundation for the admission of the scientific test results. |
Supreme Court |
No. SCAP-23-0000335 and No. SCAP-23-0000531, Tuesday, April 15, 2025, 9 a.m. NO. SCAP-23-0000335: NO. SCAP-23-0000531: The above-captioned cases have been set for oral argument on the merits at: Supreme Court Courtroom The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Olelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/. Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants LARRY W. MCCULLOUGH, DERROL E. ESTRELLA, JUANITA F. ESTRELLA,JOHN A. MATUSEK, SUNDAY M. MATUSEK, ARTHUR M. AQUINO, MILAGROS N. AQUINO, NEVILLE T. PRITCHARD and BARBARA M. PRITCHARD: James J. Bickerton and Bridget G. Morgan-Bickerton of Bickerton Law Group and Van-Alan H. Shima of Affinity Law Group, LLLC Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees ERIC TUCKER, MICHELLE TUCKER and U.S. BANK, N.A.: Pamela W. Bunn and Madisson L. Heinze of Dentons US LLP Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.: Allison Mizuo Lee and Patricia J. McHenry of Cades Schutte LLP and Elizabeth Z. Timmermans of McGuirewoods LLP Attorney for Defendants-Appellees JAMES SOR, AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B., BRADLEY ALAN LOEFFLER, BARBARA JEAN LOEFFLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE LOEFFLER 2011 FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 22, 2011: Charles A. Price of Koshiba & Price Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBERT R. HEMSHER, JR., BRIDGETTE B. HEMSHER, STEPHEN P. CANO, NINA Q. CANO and RAYMOND PINEDA: James J. Bickerton and Bridget G. Morgan-Bickerton of Bickerton Law Group and Van-Alan H. Shima of Affinity Law Group, LLLC Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee MAUNA LANI GOLF H2, LLC: Michael C. Bird, Summer H. Kaiawe and Vanessa D. Wen of Watanabe Ing LLP Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.: Allison Mizuo Lee and Patricia J. McHenry of Cades Schutte LLP and Elizabeth Z. Timmermans of McGuirewoods LLP Attorney for Defendants-Appellees WAYNE MICHAEL TILKA and DOROTHY JEAN TILKA: Charles A. Price of Koshiba & Price NOTE: Order accepting application for transfer in 1) SCAP-23-0000335, filed 05/02/24; 2) SCAP-23-0000531, filed 05/06/24. NOTE: Order consolidating SCAP-23-0000335 and SCAP-23-0000531 for oral argument only, filed 03/05/25. NOTE: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ. Brief Description: These cases, consolidated for oral argument only, arise from non-judicial foreclosures between 2008 and 2011. Plaintiffs in both cases filed wrongful foreclosure lawsuits in the circuit court against Bank of America, N.A. and quiet title and ejectment actions against the defendants currently holding title to the foreclosed-on properties. This court granted both parties’ applications for transfer from the Intermediate Court of Appeals. The central issue to this case is whether a purchaser is on constructive notice of defects in a non-judicial foreclosure pursuant to HRS § 667-5 (repealed) based on a foreclosure affidavit recorded in the property’s chain of title. Defendants to the quiet title and ejectment action argue that they are bona fide purchasers and, therefore, even if the foreclosure was procedurally defective, Plaintiffs cannot pursue their quiet title and ejectment claim. Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants’ bona fide purchaser defense fails because the affidavit of foreclosure placed Defendants on constructive notice of a procedurally defective foreclosure. |
Supreme Court |
No. SCWC-23-0000376, Thursday, April 17, 2025, 10 a.m., State v. Zuffante STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHARLES ZUFFANTE, Petitoner/Defendant-Appellant. The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at: Performing Arts Center The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/. Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant CHARLES ZUFFANTE: Georgette Anne Yaindl of the Law Office of Georgette A. Yaindl Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I: Frederick M. Macapinlac, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 02/05/25. COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ. Brief Description: This case arises from a traffic stop in Kona, Hawaiʻi. An officer conducted a pat down of Petitioner Charles Zuffante and found a packet of crystal methamphetamine in his pocket. Police later found more methamphetamine in the vehicle. Following Zuffante’s arrest, a Hawaiʻi Police Department officer questioned Zuffante at the police station. At trial, the officer testified that Zuffante voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and made statements to him, including that Zuffante sells crystal methamphetamine. A jury found Zuffante guilty of Attempted Promotion of a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes §§ 712-1241(1)(b)(ii) and 705-500. The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment. Zuffante appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), arguing that his statements to the officer were not voluntary. He argued the Circuit Court erred by admitting the officer’s testimony, because Zuffante’s statement was not electronically recorded. Zuffante asserted that, under the Hawaiʻi Constitution, Hawaiʻi should adopt the “Stephan Rule” from Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156 (Alaska 1985), which requires under the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution that police record criminal interrogations conducted at a police station. Zuffante argued that without the officer’s testimony about Zuffante’s statements, the State did not present substantial evidence to support his conviction. Zuffante also claimed his counsel was ineffective for not challenging the officer’s testimony. The ICA affirmed the Circuit Court. Zuffante’s application for certiorari to this court was granted. He argues the ICA gravely erred by (1) affirming the Circuit Court’s admission of the officer’s testimony; (2) finding there was substantial evidence to sustain Zuffante’s conviction; and (3) not addressing Zuffante’s ineffective assistance claim. Zuffante argues the supreme court should overrule State v. Kekona, 77 Hawaiʻi 403 (1994), where the court directly rejected the “Stephan Rule,” and instead require that police record custodial interrogations.
|
Supreme Court |