Laserfiche WebLink
***FOR PliBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> B. <br /> The County does not argue that the hourly rate <br /> requested is out of line with "the prevailing market rates in the <br /> relevant community [ , ] " (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U. S . 886, <br /> 895 (1984) , or that the number of hours expended on any <br /> particular task is unreasonable. Because the rates requested <br /> appear to be reasonable, for those invoices that are determined <br /> to properly relate to the appeal of Condemnation 1, attorneys' <br /> fees must be awarded at the rates claimed by Appellant, and for <br /> the number of hours requested. See Chun v. Bd. of Trustees of <br /> Employees' Ret . Sys . , 106 Hawaii 416, 423, 106 P. 3d 339, 346 <br /> (2005) (recognizing that " [t] he value of an attorney' s time <br /> generally is reflected in his normal billing rate [ , ] " which <br /> should be "applied to the actual hours worked") . <br /> VI . <br /> A. <br /> As to its first objection, the County argues that the <br /> fees ($11, 999 . 00) and costs ($910 . 87) from the January 24, 2008 <br /> bill should be denied because they are incident to "services <br /> provided prior to the filing of the [n] otice of [a] ppeal, which <br /> is, prior to February 8 , 2008 [ , ] " and "involved the proceedings <br /> that was [sic] still before the trial_ judge . " The County <br /> specifically identifies five entries from that bill to <br /> demonstrate their unrelatedness to matters on appeal : <br /> 14 <br />