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 /> Robert D. Harris 2 . 5 190 475 . 00 <br /> Christi-Anne H. Kudo- 64 . 4 145-150 9, 382 . 61 <br /> Chock (CHKC) <br /> Cherise Aqua-Andrews 10 . 7 145 1, 551 . 50 <br /> Eugenie-Mae Kincaid 9 . 8 130 1, 274 . 00 <br /> TOTAL 45, 383 . 50 <br /> Excise Tax 2, 098 . 07 <br /> GRAND TOTAL 47, 481 . 57 <br /> As to the foregoing fees, Appellant argues that the "lodestar" <br /> method, whereby "the [c] ourt determines the number of hours <br /> worked and multiplies the hours by a reasonable rate of <br /> compensation [ , ] " is the "presumptively reasonable fee [ . ] " <br /> Appellant asserts that " [t] he rates charged by [Appellant' s] <br /> counsel are consistent with the prevailing rates in the community <br /> for attorneys of like experience . " As to the number of hours <br /> expended, Appellant claims that "this appeal case presented an <br /> issue of first impression with a complex constitutional <br /> dimension, and a massive Record on Appeal spanning multiple <br /> volumes and nearly a decade of litigation. ,6 According to <br /> Appellant, as observed before, in order to determine the number <br /> of hours spent exclusively on the appeal of Condemnation 1, <br /> " [t] he working attorneys roughly apportioned the time between the <br /> two matters and the matters were billed separately. " <br /> 6 This court notes that the "complex constitutional dimension" was <br /> actually part of Condemnation 2, for which Appellant does not request, and is <br /> not as of yet entitled, to recover fees and costs. However, the County does <br /> not argue that the number of hours spent on any particular task is <br /> unreasonable, and, therefore, except where otherwise noted, the claimed number <br /> of hours expended is considered reasonable. <br /> 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.