Laserfiche WebLink
120 P.3d 217 Page 1 <br />108 Hawai'i 318, 120 P.3d 217 <br />(Cite as: 108 Hawai'i 318, 120 P.3d 217) <br />part and denied in part. <br />Hawai <br />Supreme Court of ‘i. <br />CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE AND RESPONSI-Nakayama, J., filed concurring and dissenting <br />Hawai <br />BLE GOVERNMENT, a ‘i nonprofit corpora-opinion, in which Moon, C.J., joined. <br />tion; Brenda J. Ford; Stanley A. Boren; Floyd H. <br />Lundquist; Marlene E. Lundquist; Ronald C. Phillips, <br />Nakayama, J., filed dissenting opinion on recon- <br />Plaintiffs-Appellants <br />sideration in which Moon, C.J., joined. <br />and <br />Beverly Byouk and Sandra W. Scarr, Plaintiffs- <br />West Headnotes <br />Appellees <br />v. <br />863 <br />[1] Appeal and Error 30 <br />COUNTYHAWAICountyCounty <br /> OF ‘i; Clerk, <br />HawaiCounty <br />Of‘i; Lloyd Van de Car, Chairman, <br />30 Appeal and Error <br />HawaiReapportionment <br />of‘i 2001 Commission, <br />30XVI Review <br />Defendants-Appellees. <br />30XVI(A) Scope, Standards, and Extent, in <br />General <br />No. 25614. <br />30k862 Extent of Review Dependent on <br />July 22, 2005. <br />Nature of Decision Appealed from <br />As Corrected July 28, 2005. <br />30k863 k. In General. Most Cited Cases <br />As Amended on Reconsideration Sept. 22, 2005. <br />Order Granting Reconsideration in Part and Denying <br />Unlike other appellate matters, in reviewing <br />Reconsideration in Part Sept. 22, 2005. <br />summary judgment decisions, an appellate court steps <br />into the shoes of the trial court and applies the same <br />Background: <br />Citizens' groups and concerned indi- <br />legal standard as the trial court applied, finding sum- <br />viduals sued county, requesting declaratory ruling <br />mary judgment to be appropriate if the pleadings, <br />that county commission's plan for reapportionment of <br />depositions, and answers to interrogatories, and ad- <br />county council districts was invalid. The Third Cir- <br />missions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, <br />cuit Court granted partial summary judgment in favor <br />show that there is no genuine issue of material fact <br />of county, and parties entered into stipulation for <br />and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a <br />entry of judgment. Plaintiffs appealed. <br />matter of law. <br />Holdings: <br /> The Supreme Court, Acoba, J., held that: <br />[2] Appeal and Error 30 893(1) <br />(1) phrase “equal resident populations” in county <br />charter excluded nonresident college students and <br />30 Appeal and Error <br />nonresident military personnel and their dependents <br />30XVI Review <br />from population base for purposes of reapportioning <br />30XVI(F) Trial De Novo <br />county council districts; <br />30k892 Trial De Novo <br />(2) total deviation in excess of 10 percent in electoral <br />30k893 Cases Triable in Appellate <br />reapportionment plan presents prima facie case of <br />Court <br />discrimination in violation of federal equal protection <br />30k893(1) k. In General. Most Cited <br />clause; <br />Cases <br />(3) rational government policy will justify total de- <br />viation slightly exceeding 10 percent threshold; and <br />(4) total deviation of 10.89 percent in this case did <br />A trial court's conclusions of law are reviewed de <br />not violate equal protection. <br />novo on appeal under the right/wrong standard, and <br />so are not binding upon the appellate court and are <br />freely reviewable for correctness. <br />Affirmed; motion for reconsideration granted in <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. <br /> <br />