|
the instant case involved the protection of constitutional rights . . . These
<br /> constitutional rights are of profound significance, and all of the citizens of the
<br /> state,present and future, stand to benefit from the court's decisions. Waihole II,
<br /> 96 Haw. at 31, 25 P.3d at 806. The court therefore concludes that the third prong
<br /> of the PAG doctrine test is met.
<br /> 11. In Phase III of the trial,the court found that the County abdicated its
<br /> responsibility to enforce the land use laws. The court recognized that,"absent a
<br /> court order, Oceanside will proceed with construction of its agricultural
<br /> subdivision contrary to state land use requirements,making a prohibitory
<br /> inunction necessary,"and"the County Planning Director will continue to grant
<br /> approvals pursuant to the Development Agreement and contrary to state land use
<br /> requirements."
<br /> 15. The court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs in Counts II, IV,paragraphs
<br /> 138(b), 139(a), and 139(b) of Count V, and Counts VI and X. The court has
<br /> determined that, on balance,that the plaintiffs prevailed on these issues as against
<br /> Defendants Oceanside and the County of Hawaii. The court has determined that
<br /> neither defendant was a nominal defendant, and thus finds it equitable to
<br /> apportion responsibility for attorneys' fees between Defendants Oceanside and the
<br /> County of Hawaii.
<br /> Attorneys' Fees Order, COL Nos. 7,8, 9, 15,R at 72:23449, 458-460, 462. This error
<br /> was brought to the attention of the Circuit Court in the Memorandum in Support of the County's
<br /> Motion to Amend 2d Amended Judgment, p. 16, 18, R at 86:27820, 822, and the County
<br /> Defendant-Appellants' Memorandum Regarding Attorneys' Fees filed December 15, 2003,R at
<br /> 70: 22990.
<br /> Point of Error No. 23: The Circuit Court erred in denying, without explanation,the
<br /> County Defendants' combined Motion to Amend Second Amended Judgment and Motion to
<br /> Amend Yd Amended Judgment. Order denying motions, filed September 9, 2004, R at 87:
<br /> 28381-384.
<br /> III. Standard of Review
<br /> Whether a court possesses subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewable de
<br /> novo. Hawai i Management Alliance Association v. Insurance Commissioner, 106 Haw. 21,_,
<br /> 100 P.3d 952, 957 (2004). The relief granted by a court in equity is discretionary and will not be
<br /> overturned on review unless the circuit court abused its discretion. Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch
<br /> Estates, 91 Hawaii 478, 487, 985 P.2d 1045, 1054(1999). Findings ojFact("FOF') are
<br /> subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review,reversible when, "despite evidence to support
<br /> the finding,the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
<br /> 26
<br />
|