Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Application for a Writ of Certiorari, Kauai Springs, Inc. v. Planning Comm'n of the Cty of Kauai, No. SCWC-29440 (July 29, 2013)

Application for a Writ of Certiorari, Kauai Springs, Inc. v. Planning Comm'n of the Cty of Kauai, No. SCWC-29440 (July 29, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,351 |Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5
Application for a Writ of Certiorari, Kauai Springs, Inc. v. Planning Comm'n of the Cty of Kauai, No. SCWC-29440 (July 29, 2013)
Application for a Writ of Certiorari, Kauai Springs, Inc. v. Planning Comm'n of the Cty of Kauai, No. SCWC-29440 (July 29, 2013)

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Nov 11, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/15/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
No. SCWC-29440
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII KAUAI SPRINGS, INC., Petitioner/Appellee-Appellant, vs. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, Respondent/Appellant-Appellee.  _____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS ICA Opinion: Apr. 30, 2013 ICA Judgment: May 30, 2013 Circuit Court: Civil No. 07-1-0042 Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit Hon. Kathleen N.A. Watanabe Judgment: September 23, 2008
 APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI APPENDICES 1 - 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
ROBERT H. THOMAS 4610-0 MARK M. MURAKAMI 7342-0 DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT 1003 Bishop Street, 16th Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (808) 531-8031
Attorneys for Petitioner/Appellee-Appellant
 
KAUAI SPRINGS, INC.
Electronically FiledSupreme CourtSCWC-2944029-JUL-201311:09 AM
 
No. SCWC-29440
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII KAUAI SPRINGS, INC., Petitioner/Appellee-Appellant, vs. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, Respondent/Appellant-Appellee.  _____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS ICA Opinion: Apr. 30, 2013 ICA Judgment: May 30, 2013 Circuit Court: Civil No. 07-1-0042 Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit Hon. Kathleen N.A. Watanabe Judgment: September 23, 2008
 APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Table of Authorities ..................................................................................................................... ii Index to Appendices .................................................................................................................. iv APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI .................................................................... 1 QUESTIONS PRESENTED. ....................................................................................................... 2 1. Deemed approved or deemed waived? ................................................................ 2 2.
KPC’s own process
 .............................................................................................. 2 PRIOR PROCEEDINGS ............................................................................................................. 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................................... 3 ARGUMENT
……………………………………………………………………………………
6 I. POST-APPROVAL COOPERATION DOES NOT IMPLY ASSENT .......................... 6 1. Section 91-
13.5(e) is not “ambiguo
us
 ................................................................ 8 2. Vested property cannot be retroactively taken by implication ............................ 9 3. Infinite and futile remand................................................................................... 10 II. AN AGENCY CANNOT REBOOT BASED ON ITS OWN PURPORTED INADEQUATE INQUIRY ............................................................................................ 10 1.
The circuit court recognized KPC’s
 Kelly
 duty ................................................. 11 2. KPC argued its own process was inadequate ..................................................... 11 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 12

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->