My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009-04-21_County_of_Hawaii_v_Coupe_Family_and_Robert_Nigel_Richards_Opinion_of_the_Supreme_Court_by_Justice_Acoba
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Court Documents
>
2009-04-21_County_of_Hawaii_v_Coupe_Family_and_Robert_Nigel_Richards_Opinion_of_the_Supreme_Court_by_Justice_Acoba
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2011 4:27:24 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 4:25:22 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> Although Appellant apparently has moved for statutory damages <br /> under HRS § 101-27, and not for costs under HRAP Rule 39, it <br /> asserts that some of the costs requested are those also set forth <br /> in HRAP 39 (c) , which provides : <br /> (c) Costs defined. Costs in the appellate courts are <br /> defined as: (1) the cost of the original and one copy of the <br /> reporter's transcripts if necessary for the determination of <br /> the appeal; (2) the premiums paid for supersedeas bonds or <br /> other bonds to preserve rights pending appeal; (3) the fee <br /> for filing the appeal; (4) the cost of printing or otherwise <br /> producing necessary copies of briefs and appendices, <br /> provided that copying costs shall not exceed 20� per page; <br /> (5) necessary postage, cost of facsimiles, intrastate <br /> travel, long distance telephone charges; and (6) any other <br /> costs authorized by statute or rule. <br /> (Emphases added. ) However, Appellant argues that HRS § 101-27 <br /> authorizes recovery of costs not ordinarily granted: <br /> Under [HRS §] 101-27, the property owner is "entitled" to be <br /> made economically whole and shall recover "all such damage <br /> as may have been sustained by the defendant by reason of the <br /> bringing of the proceedings . . . including the defendant' s <br /> costs of court . . . and other reasonable expenses <br /> [, ] " [and thus, even though under the assumpsit <br /> statute, [HRS] § 607-14, this court has noted that legal <br /> research expenses are not "taxable costs, " legal research <br /> expenses incurred and paid by a property owner in a <br /> condemnation action in which its property is not taken, <br /> [are] . . . recover[able] . . . as "other reasonable <br /> expenses" under [HRS §] 101-27 . <br /> (Emphases supplied by Appellant . ) (Citation omitted. ) <br /> 2 . <br /> As for attorneys' fees, Appellant claims that "in its <br /> successful appeal of [Condemnation 1, ] " it incurred $45, 383 . 50 in <br /> attorneys' fees, allocated as follows : <br /> Professional Time Rate Total <br /> Kenneth R. Kupchak 10 . 3 335-350 $3, 729. 54 <br /> Robert H. Thomas (RHT) 66. 6 300-325 21, 375 . 95 <br /> Mark M. Murakami (MMM) 33 . 8 220-230 7, 594 . 90 <br /> 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.