|
been committed." Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ponce, 105 Hawaii 445,_, 99 P.3d 96, 104
<br /> (2004). A Conclusion of Law("COL') is not binding upon an appellate court and is freely
<br /> reviewable for its correctness . . . This court ordinarily reviews COLs under the right/wrong
<br /> standard. However, a COL that presents mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed under the
<br /> clearly erroneous standard because the court's conclusions are dependent upon the facts and
<br /> circumstances of each individual case. Id. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law
<br /> reviewable de novo. Id. Rezoning is a legislative act and is subject to the deference given
<br /> legislative acts. Save Sunset Beach Coalition v. City and County of Honolulu, 102 Hawaii 465,
<br /> 474, 78 P.3d 1, 10(1999). "We review questions of constitutional law de novo,under a
<br /> right/wrong standard." Id. (bold italics added). "We review the circuit court's grant or denial of
<br /> summary judgment de novo." Hawai i Community Federal Credit Union v. Keka, 94 Hawaii
<br /> 213,221, 11 P.3d 1, 9 (2000).
<br /> IV. ARGUMENT
<br /> A. Plaintiffs Lacked Standing to Challenge the Development Under Chapter 205, HRS.
<br /> "A plaintiff without standing is not entitled to invoke a court's jurisdiction." Sierra Club
<br /> v. Hawai i Tourism Authority, 100 Hawaii 242, 250, 59 P. 3d 877, 885 (2002). To establish
<br /> standing, a plaintiff must show"that he has suffered an injury in fact, and that the concerns of a
<br /> multiplicity of suits are satisfied by any means, including a class action." PASH, 79 Hawaii
<br /> 425, 434, 903 P.2d 1246, 1255,n. 15, quoting Akau v. Olohana Corp., 65 Haw. 383, 388-389,
<br /> 652 P.2d 1130, 1134 (1982). Injury-in-fact is composed of three parts: "(1) an actual or
<br /> threatened injury(2)which is fairly traceable to the challenged action, and(3) is likely to be
<br /> remedied by favorable judicial action." Ka Pa'akai O Ka Aina v. Land Use Commission,State
<br /> of Hawai i, 94 Hawaii 31,42, 7 P.3d 1068, 1079 (2000). The plaintiff "must show a distinct
<br /> and palpable injury to himself'that is"distinct and palpable, as opposed to abstract, conjectural,
<br /> or merely hypothetical."Mottl v. Cayetano, 95 Hawaii 381, 389, 23 P.3d 716, 724(2004).
<br /> Plaintiffs have the burden of proving injury-in-fact. Sierra Club v. Hawai 'I Tourism Authority,
<br /> 100 Hawaii at 250, 59 P.3d at 885. "While the basis for standing has expanded in cases
<br /> implicating environmental concerns and native Hawaiian rights,plaintiffs must still satisfy the
<br /> injury-in-fact test." 100 Hawaii at 251, 59 P.3d at 886.
<br /> Plaintiff PKO fails to meet the injury-in-fact test for HRS Chapter 205. The record
<br /> 27
<br />
|