The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 1

THE APPELLATE RECORD

October 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 recently
retired Justice Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. give us his words of wisdom and of
experience, in a presentation entitled Trends in Hawaii Jurisprudence.
Justice Acobas topics included the right to privacy (in both the civil
and criminal context), standing in administrative law, and cases involving
the 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
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 2
Determining the scope of the right to privacy in the civil context for
example, HIPAA provides a federal floor/minimum to the right to
privacy but Hawaii can impose more stringent requirements;
Further analysis on the scope of the right to privacy in the criminal
context in light of continuing technological changes;
Whether there will continue to be an expansion of standing in
administrative law related to interested persons there is currently a
trend toward a wider opening of the courts to allow more lawsuits, for
example, expanding the definition of a final and conclusive decision
by an agency;
Further analysis of the current trend toward the expansion of the
application of the Public Trust Doctrine (for example in Kauai Springs
v. Planning Commn of the Cnty. of Kauai, 2014 WL 812683 (Haw. Feb.
28, 2014), the HAWSCT recently set forth a formula for applying the
doctrine in water cases);
Further elaboration of the intersection/overlap between the Public
Trust Doctrine and Hawaii rights cases (which often go hand-in-hand).
Justice Acoba also offered the additional information on appeals to the
Hawaii Supreme Court, practice tips, and advice:
Nearly 50% of applications for certiorari that are filed in the last
fiscal year were accepted;
On average, since 2012, the HAWSCT has issued 50 opinions per
year (2014 will be higher);
Given the number of cert applications that are accepted and the
likelihood that a case will be scheduled for oral arguments, the
HAWSCT is much more active now than in the past;
To get your application for cert to stand out (and be more likely to be
accepted): be straightforward, be forthright; and make sure that your
arguments are supported by the law and the record.
The court puts as much work and research into its analysis of a case
where cert is ultimately rejected as it does in determining whether a
case will be accepted;
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 3
Amicus briefs can be helpful, and the court is open to allowing them if
a motion is filed.
Many thanks to Justice Acoba for yet another invaluable contribution to the
appellate practice by sharing his insight!
At our May meeting, we jointly presented with the Hawaii Family
Law Section for a panel discussion on a variety of appellate practice issues for
family law appeals. Our presenters were appellate practitioners Peter V.N.
Esser and Rebecca A. Copeland, both of whom represent clients in both
general civil appeals and family law cases. We thank the Hawaii Supreme
Court for hosting us in their courtroom to accommodate attendees for both
sections and our co-sponsors in the Hawaii Family Law Section for coming
up with this unique cross-over presentation.
At our June meeting, we brainstormed on the current state of the
Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedures, potential ideas and thoughts for
amendments to the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although the
Section does not specifically have influence over whether the rules may be
amended in any particular way, they hope to present their ideas to the
Hawaii judiciary and the Appellate Rules Committee for consideration. The
discussion at the June meeting was lively and produced a number of potential
ideas. The members attending the meeting decided that the best course of
action would be to form a committee of members to further explore the ideas,
research any potential recommendations, and discuss whether and when the
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 4
ideas may be presented to the Rules Committee. The appellate member
committee has not yet been formed, but the Section is looking into doing so in
2015. If your have any ideas you would like considered, or have a special
interest in serving on the committee, please let one of the Section's board
members know.
Also in June, the Section jointly presented with the Hawaii Federal
Bar Association a panel discussion of the visiting Ninth Circuit judges in
between their hearings held on island. A big mahalo to Rebecca A. Copeland
and her FBA counterpart for putting together this event!
At our July meeting, Elijah Yip, a partner at Cades Schutte, former
chair of the Litigation Section, and blogger at www.LegalTXTS.com, gave a
presentation to the Section entitled Social Media Ethics for Lawyers. Elijah
has been a frequent speaker for the Section and we appreciate him
continuing to keep us informed and updated on issues concerning technology
and social media relevant to our practices.
At our August meeting, Mark J. Bennett, a Director of Starn OToole
Marcus & Fisher and former Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, and
Kenneth R. Kupchak, a Director of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert,
regaled those in attendance with their Appellate War Stories, including
lessons learned and insight gained from arguing before some of the highest
courts in the state and the country.
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 5
The advice provided by these two seasoned attorneys included many helpful
practice pointers, including:
You cant be funny, only the judge can be funny;
If you are prepared, the worst that can happen is you lose (more or
less);
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 argument
instead of splitting your time in a case where there are multiple
attorneys/parties;
Your job is to help the judges understand your case.
We were happy to see a number of summer clerks from our members firms
be able to join us before they returned to law school.
On September 26, the Appellate Section held its annual Meet and
Greet at the Hawaii Supreme Court between the bench and bar.
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 6
Chief Justice Recktenwald thanked the Section for its continuing work and
spoke on access to justice initiatives and the Courts sessions in schools
throughout the islands. Greg Markum, President-elect of the HSBA talked
about the Legal Legends program interviewing those with three-digit bar
numbers:
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 was
had by those in attendance (bar members, the judiciary, clerks and staff
attorneys). Many thanks to the appellate judiciary and their excellent staff
for hosting this event!
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 7
OPPORTUNITIES!!!
Call for Volunteers for the 2015 Board
We will be holding our elections for the 2015 Board at our annual
meeting on December 16 (see our announcement below). The Board is in the
process of selecting the slate of nominees for the 2015 Board. The positions of
the 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 one
of these positions or would like the Board to consider a fellow Section
member, please contact Section Chair, Bethany C.K. Ace at
bcka@hawaiilawyer.com.
Volunteers for Courts in the Community
The Hawaii Supreme Court will be holding its next Courts in the
Community oral argument at Mililani High School on December 4, 2014 at
10:00 a.m. Attorneys are needed to work with teachers and students to
understand the case prior to oral arguments.
Volunteers will attend an orientation this month on October 29, 2014 at
4:30 at the Mililani High School library where they will be provided with all
the information they need to know prior to meeting with their
students. Thereafter, volunteers meet with their students twice -- once to
explain the case and a second time to conduct a moot court. Attendance at
the 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 Hoala School.
This is not only a unique opportunity for the volunteer attorneys, but
one for the high school students also! Volunteer attorneys will also be invited
to attend a post-oral argument luncheon with the Hawaii Supreme Court
justices. Join us for the exciting and educational event!
If you are interested or would like more information, please email former
Appellate Section Chair Rebecca Copeland at rebecca@copelandlawllc.com
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 8
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 (Section
Chair; Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert)
In March 2014, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued 3
published 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 court
against the former director of the union for breach of fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the former director
brought an action in state court seeking indemnification from the union. The ICA
held that the indemnification claim was neither expressly nor impliedly preempted
by ERISA. However, the director was not entitled to indemnification from the
union under a theory of vicarious liability because he was personally liable for the
federal court judgment due to his own negligent acts; the union could not be held
liable simply because it was his employer.
State v. Won, 134 Haw. 59, 332 P.3d 661 (App. 2014). In this operating a
vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) case, the ICA held that a police
inquiry into whether a driver suspected of OVUII will submit to breath or blood
testing pursuant to the implied consent statute does not constitute interrogation for
Miranda purposes and therefore does not require Miranda warnings.
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 9
State v. Eberly, 134 Haw. 81, 332 P.3d 683 (App. 2014). The ICA affirmed
defendants conviction for third degree forgery for passing a counterfeit $20 bill to a
co-defendant. While defendant argued on appeal that U.S. currency was not
specifically included in the definition of written instrument in Hawaiis forgery
statutes, 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 Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued 3 published
opinions. The following is a brief synopsis of those opinions:
Hussey v. Say, 133 Haw. 229, 325 P.3d 641 (App. 2014). In this quo
warranto action challenging a state house representatives title to office based on
allegations he did not live in the district that he represented, the circuit court
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the ICA held that the
circuit court, not the county clerk, did have statutory jurisdiction to hear the quo
warranto petition, and it vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
In re PP, 133 Haw. 235, 325 P.3d 647 (App. 2014). The family court had
found that a minor violated HRS 707-717(1), Terroristic Threatening in the
Second Degree. On appeal, the ICA concluded there was insufficient evidence to
support the conviction because the minor did not possess the requisite reckless
disregard state of mind sufficient to impose penal liability and the minor did not
utter a true threat that he intended to inflict bodily harm on the complainant, as
required by the statute.
Hollaway v. Hollaway, 133 Haw. 415, 329 P.3d 320 (App. 2014). On appeal
from a modification of a custody award giving the mother sole custody regarding
educational decisions made on behalf of the child, the ICA vacated the family courts
order because there was not substantial evidence to support the courts decision
that private school would offer the child better options than the public school
alternative advocated for by the father. The ICA also held that the impasse
between the parties as to the education issue was sufficient to meet the material
change in circumstance threshold necessary in a post-decree modification
proceeding.
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 10
In May 2014, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued 2 published
opinions. 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 establish
implied access and utility easements across adjacent property to a public highway.
Summary judgment was granted for the adjacent property owner. On appeal, the
ICA held that prior unity of ownership required to establish an implied easement
can be satisfied if the government was the prior common owner of the parcels.
Here, the prior common owner was the Kingdom of Hawaii.
NB v. GA, 133 Haw. 436, 329 P.3d 341 (App. 2014). In this interstate child
custody dispute, the family court declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that
Florida was the home state of the child. On appeal, the ICA agreed with the father
that the mothers move to Florida did not affect the jurisdiction of the family court
in Hawaii because the family court had assumed jurisdiction over a previously-filed
paternity action without objection by any of the parties. Thus, the family court
retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the custody proceedings despite the
mother and childs move to Florida. The ICA vacated and remanded but instructed
the family court to defer any rulings pending a determination as to whether it is
more appropriate for Florida to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to HRS 583A-207.
In June 2014, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued 1 published opinion and
the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued 1 published opinion. The
following is a brief synopsis of those opinions:
Jou v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 133 Haw. 471, 331 P.3d 449 (2014). After the
ICA denied appellate costs requested under HRAP Rule 39 after vacating and
remanding a circuit court order in favor of Jou (the appellant), the Hawaii Supreme
Court vacated the order and judgment of the ICA pertaining to the denial of
appellate costs. The court held that a party that, on balance, prevails on the main
disputed issues on appeal is eligible for an award of appellate costs pursuant to
HRAP Rule 39(a).
Kilakila O Haleakala v. University of Hawaii, 134 Haw. 86, 332 P.3d
388 (App. 2014). In this case, the Board of Land and Natural Resources granted
UHs conservation district use application to permit construction of a telescope and
associated facilities at the summit of Haleakala, and UH determined that an
environmental impact statement (EIS) was not required for the project. On appeal,
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 11
the ICA agreed that an EIS was not required because the telescopes Management
Plan would not have a significant impact on the environment, and it affirmed the
circuit court.
In July 2014, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued 3 published opinions and
the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued 2 published opinions. The
following 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 the
Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations to undergo an
independent medical examination (IME). The Director deferred determination of
the claim until Gour complied with the order, and Gour appealed to the Labor and
Industrial Relations Appeals Board. LIRAB dismissed Gours appeal on the ground
that compensability remained undetermined and thus there was no appealable
decision or final order. Gour then appealed to the ICA, which held that LIRAB was
required to exercise jurisdiction over the appeal because delay until entry of a final
decision by the Director would deprive Gour of adequate relief. Because Gour
wanted to challenge the validity of the order compelling him to undergo the IME, no
relief 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 retirement
benefits after claiming she became permanently incapacitated on the job. Her
employer, the City and County of Honolulu, argued she was not entitled to benefits
because Panado could not establish the definite time and place of the injury as
required by HRS 88-79. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that Panado did not
need to establish the exact moment of injury because it was undisputed that the
injury occurred sometime during her work shift; thus, the time and place of injury
were neither vague nor doubtful.
Oahu Publications Inc. v. Ahn, 133 Haw. 482, 331 P.3d 460 (2014). In this
original proceeding, The Honolulu Star-Advertiser and Hawaii News Now filed
petitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus relating to sealed transcripts of
proceedings that were not open to the public in the Christopher Deedy murder trial.
The Hawaii Supreme Court dismissed the writ of prohibition as moot and denied
the writ of mandamus but issued an opinion guiding trial courts in their
determinations to close court proceedings or deny public access to transcripts of
those proceedings. The court held that the Hawaii Constitution provides the public
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 12
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 interest
protected by closed proceedings, along with findings specific enough that a
reviewing court can determine whether the closure was properly entered, and (2)
provides a reasonable opportunity to object. The defendants right to a fair and
impartial trial may be an interest overriding public access, but a hearing should be
closed only if specific findings are made demonstrating that (1) there is a
substantial probability that closure would prevent publicity that would serve to
prejudice defendants right to a fair trial and (2) reasonable alternatives to closure
cannot adequately protect defendants fair trial rights.
Cole v. AOAO Alii Cove, 134 Haw. 103, 332 P.3d 705 (App. 2014). In this
workers compensation case, Cole was awarded temporary total disability benefits
by the Director of the DLIR Disability Compensation Division. The employer and
insurance carrier appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeal Board,
which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal had
been filed without a signature. On further appeal, the ICA concluded that the
missing signature was an insufficiency in the form of the notice of appeal, and not a
jurisdictional defect; therefore, dismissal was not warranted. The ICA vacated and
remanded the case, noting that the instant appeal could have been avoided had
LIRAB 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 a
Uniform Information Practices Act request for the list of nominees submitted by the
Judicial Selection Commission to the Governor; the Governor appealed only the
award of fees and costs under HRS 92F-15(d). The ICA dismissed the appeal sua
sponte after briefing was completed due to lack of an appealable final judgment. A
second appeal was filed and the briefs were refiled. The Star-Advertiser prevailed
on appeal with respect to the circuit court fees and costs, but was denied appellate
fees because the ICA deemed a request for fees in the first appeal untimely. The
Hawaii 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 on
the merits. At the point that the first appeal was dismissed for lack of appellate
jurisdiction, there was no prevailing party and the Star-Advertiser could not then
have requested appellate fees and costs.
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 13
In August 2014, the Hawaii Supreme Court and Intermediate Court of
Appeals each issued one published opinion. The following is a brief synopsis of
those opinions.
Balogh v. Balogh, SCWC-11-0001074 (Haw. August 7, 2014). Hearing the
case on certiorari, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a quitclaim deed signed by
the parties prior to divorce that gave the wife 100% ownership in the couples
marital resident did not control distribution of the property upon the divorce. The
Court found that a separate marital agreement, a memorandum of understanding,
was not unconscionable and thus enforceable, approving the standard applied by
the Intermediate Court of Appeals that for the unconscionability exception to apply
in the absence of unfair surprise, the agreement must be outrageously
oppressive[.] The agreement, giving the husband 25% interest in the property did
not meet that high standard (i.e., it was not unjustly disproportionate). The Court
also found that for a marital agreement to be found involuntary on the basis of
duress there must be an improper threat.
State of Hawaii v. Kazanas, CAAP-12-0001011 (Haw. App. August 29,
2014). The Intermediate Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly
permitted the State to introduce evidence of an incriminating statement made by
defendant-appellant Kazanas to a police officer because the police officer did not
subject Kanazas to interrogation for purposes of Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, and that
the statement was not made in response to interrogation. After being arrested but
prior to being given Miranda warnings, Kazanas had made an incriminating
statement in response to small talk made by the police officer assigned to
transport him to the hospital. There was no issue that Kanazas was in custody, but
the 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 Hawaii Constitution), the
Court 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 prior
incidents involving Kazanas (used to rebut a defense that Kanazas had physical
disabilities that rendered him incapable of engaging in the conduct alleged),
Kanazas having opening the door to such evidence.
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 14
In September 2014, the Hawaii Supreme Court and Intermediate Court of
Appeals each issued one published opinion. The following is a brief synopsis of
those opinions.
State of Hawaii 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 in
violation of the limitations contained in the bench warrant when arrest was made
in a public park after closing hours. In interpreting the terms of the warrant, which
stated that it could not be executed on premises not open to the public (which was
based on Hawaii Rule of Penal Procedure Rule 9(b)), the Court found that it did not
limit the execution of the arrest warrant to particular hours of operation (i.e., the
limitation referred to the location being public and not those hours the property is
technically open to the public). The Court remanded for further proceedings.
State of Hawaii v. Abel, SCWC-13-0000087 (Haw. September 24, 2014).
Hearing the matter on certiorari, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that an element
of the offense Solicitation with Animals in Waikiki Special District under Revised
Ordinances of Honolulu (ROH) 29-13.2(b) is the use of a live animal to request or
demand money or gifts (emphasis added). Mr. Abel had allegedly placed live birds
onto various people, took their photos with their own cameras, and received money
from the people afterwards, but no witness or evidence was put forth that a request
or demand for money was made. The Court, using the plain meaning of the
ordinance and its legislative history, found that the request or demand for money or
gifts was an essential element and the State was required to prove that a request or
demand 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, the
Court found insufficient evidence to sustain Mr. Abels conviction.
In October 2014 (through the date of publication) the Intermediate Court of
Appeals issued one published opinion. The following is a brief synopsis:
In re Grievance Arbitration between State of Hawaii Organization of
Police Officers (SHOPO) and County of Kauai, CAAP-10-0000077 (Haw. App.
October 16, 2014). The Intermediate Court of Appeals held that an arbitration
award granting remedial promotions under the collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) did not violate public policy, one of the exceptions to the general deference
given arbitration awards. The award allegedly violated HRS Chapter 76 and the
merit principles for promotional management decisions. Using the legislative
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 15
intent in amending HRS 89-9(d) to clarify management rights in the context of
CBAs and the CBA provisions granting the arbitrator broad authority to remedy
grievances, the Court concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and
that there was no violation of public policy to support vacature.
We typically dont report on unpublished decisions, but Bailey v.
Duvauchelle, CAAP-14-0000883 (Haw. App. October 10, 2014), is noteworthy for
its analysis of appealability of post-judgment orders. The Intermediate Court of
Appeals reviewed the standard set forth in Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawaii 153, 80
P.3d 974 (2003), that [a] post-judgment order is an appealable final order under
HRS 641-1(a) if the order ends the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be
accomplished[,] but that the separate judgment rule (HRCP 58 and Jenkins) is
inapposite in the post-judgment context. However, the Court found that the order
at 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 particular
cause of action addressed in the order. Per HRCP 54(a), a judgment is a decree
and any order from which an appeal lies[,] and in an earlier appeal, the Court had
found that the judgment failed to satisfy the requirements for a final judgment
under HRS 641-1(a), HRCP Rule 58 and Jenkins. The order denying the motion
to vacate was held to be an interlocutory order eligible for review if a timely appeal
is made from the entry of a future appealable final judgment.
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 16
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 Program
at the annual HSBA Bar Convention. This year's Appellate Section Program
will feature numerous Hawaii appellate court justices and judges, including
Hawaii Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald, Hawaii
Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Craig Nakamura, former Hawaii
Supreme Court Justices James Duffy and Simeon Acoba, Jr., and
Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Alexa Fujise. Other program speakers
include Intermediate Court of Appeals Staff Attorneys and local appellate
attorneys.
The program topics will provide attendees with an insider's view of the
Hawaii Appellate Courts, an in-depth analysis of criminal appeals in
Hawaii, and practical advice on how to comply with the final judgment rule
prior to filing an appeal.
This is a not-to-be missed program that will culminate with our popular
appellate Q&A panel. And . . . attendees who stay for the whole morning
program will fulfill their 3.0 MCPE requirements!
For more information, and how to register, see the flyer attached to this
newsletter and visit the HSBA's website: http://hsba.org/
NOVEMBER
We are pleased to announce that our Wednesday, November 19
meeting will feature Justice Michael D. Wilson, the Hawaii Supreme
Courts most recently-appointed justice, as our guest speaker. Due to
scheduling conflicts, this meeting will be held in the conference rooms of the
Carlsmith Ball firm at 1001 Bishop Street #2200 (not the HSBA offices) and
we thank Section member Douglas S. Chin for hosting us.
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 17
DECEMBER
The Hawaii State Bar Association
Appellate Section and Litigation
Section cordially invite you to our
JOINT ANNUAL
MEETING
December 16
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Pacific Club
1451 Queen Emma Street, Mangos
outdoor dining
Guest Speaker: Chief Justice Recktenwald
Cost is $10 for Section Members by cash or
check (payable to HSBA Litigation Section)
collected at the door.
Please R.S.V.P. by December 10 to Litigation
Section Joe Kotowski at jkotowski@tpm-
hawaii.com.
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 18
Useful Appellate Links:
The Hawaii Judiciary: www.courts.state.hi.us
United District Court for the District of Hawaii: www.hid.uscourts.gov
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: www.ca9.uscourts.gov
United States Supreme Court: www.supremecourt.gov
Hawaii 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)
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 19
Appellate Resources:
HAWAII APPELLATE SECTION WEBSITE: The Appellate Sections website
includes useful appellate resources, including handouts from prior monthly
meetings, copies of this newsletter, and power point presentations from the
Appellate Sections programs at the 2012 and 2013 HSBA Bar Coventions.
www.hawaiiappellatesection.org
HAWAII APPELLATE PRACTICE MANUAL: The Hawaii Appellate Practice
Manual (2012) includes information for filing appeals in Hawaii, including how to e-
file documents on the Judiciarys 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 Bar
Association, and is available through the HSBA.
FEDERAL APPELLATE PRACTICE MANUAL: The Federal Appellate Practice
Manual (2013) includes valuable information and insight into practicing appeals in
the federal arena, with special emphasis on the United States Supreme Court and
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Manual was co-
sponsored by the Appellate Section and the Hawaii State Bar Association, and is
available through the HSBA.
HAWAII APPELLATE PRACTICE MANUAL SUPPLEMENT: Appellate
Motions Practice a supplement to the 2012 Hawaii Appellate Practice Manual,
offering insight and practice tips into state appellate motions practice, and
including additional forms. The Supplement was co-sponsored by the Appellate
Section 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
The Appellate Record, October 2014 Page 20
Stay tuned for the next edition of
The Appellate Record!
If you are interested in contributing to our newsletter in any way, please contact the
Sections Chair Bethany C.K. Ace at bcka@hawaiilawyer.com
The Appellate Record is presented
as a courtesy to the Members of the
Hawaii State Bar Associations
Appellate Section by its Board.
Mahalo and enjoy!