2008-10-06_Chris Yuen_v_Board_of_Appeals_and_Edmund_Jin_and_Eva_Lu_-_Answering brief-Civil_No_07-1-261K

Home

not yet been formally 'filed' by the clerk of the court." Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 273, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2383 (1988) (citing Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46, 47, 75 S.Ct. 577, 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955)). The Hawaii Supreme Court, along with a large body of other courts, a has observed the general rule stated in Houston and Parissi. See Setala v. J.C. Penney Co., 97 Hawaii 484, 487, 40 P.3d 886, 889 (2002) (citing to Houston in observing that"receipt by the court clerk is required by the declared deadline"); Hatchell v. Heckler, 708 F.2d 578, 579 (C.A.11, 1983) (holding that notice of appeal is timely where received within the specified time period though not marked as filed until after the time period and upon payment of the filing fee);Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1091 (C.A.9, 1980) (holding that notice of appeal is timely filed if received by the court within the applicable period specified in the rule, even if not formally file-stamped until after the applicable period); Haney v. Mizell Memorial Hospital, 744 F.2d 1467, 1472 (C.A.11, 1984) (holding that actual receipt of notice of appeal by court within period allowed by rule, even though not formally filed within that period, suffices to confer appellate jurisdiction); United States v. Solly, 545 F.2d 874, 876 (C.A.3, 1976) (holding that "'whenever a notice of appeal is filed in a district court, it is filed as of the time it is actually received in the clerk's office even though it is designated as filed by the clerk's office at a later date"). In the present matter,the following facts are undisputed: (1) The Board's decision and order was mailed to the parties on October 19, 2007 (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 008 at 722; SR: CV07-1-261K T001 at 9); (2) The Notice of Appeal was received by the office of the clerk of the circuit court in Hilo on November 19, 2007 (R:CV07-1-261K Doc. 011 at 766, 797); i 15 1