Laserfiche WebLink
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> attorneys' fees, and $940 . 70 in taxes [and w] e therefore award <br /> DFS $23, 515 . 70 in attorneys' fees . " (Emphasis added. ) ) ; Blair v. <br /> Inq, 96 Hawaii 327, 336, 31 P. 3d 184 , 193 (2001) ("Thayer is <br /> awarded $21, 370 . 00 for attorneys' fees, $898 . 82 for general <br /> excise tax, and $740 . 01 for costs, for a total of $23, 008 . 83, as <br /> against Plaintiffs . " (Emphasis added. ) ) ; Chun v. Bd. of Trustees <br /> of Employees' Ret . Sys . , 92 Hawaii 432, 448 , 992 P. 2d 127, 143 <br /> (2000) (vacating award of attorney' s fees because court should <br /> have considered both the percentage and lodestar methods, but <br /> without comment on the court' s award of an excise tax) . The <br /> County cites no authority to the contrary and does not offer any <br /> rationale as to why the excise tax should not be granted. <br /> Therefore, to the extent Appellant is awarded attorneys' fees, <br /> inclusion of the accompanying excise tax is allowed as part of <br /> that award. <br /> 3 . <br /> Third, as to pre-judgment interest, the County argues <br /> that "HRS § 101-27 does not specifically allow prejudgment <br /> interest . " Appellant asserts that it is entitled to interest <br /> from the date of each invoice for attorneys' fees and costs " [a] s <br /> a form of damage, pursuant to [HRS § 101-271 . " Appellant further <br /> urges that " [t] he purpose of a damage award is to put a party in <br /> the position they would have been in had not harm occurred" and <br /> that " [Appellant] suffered `damage . . . by reason of the appeal <br /> of the denial of damages in Condemnation 1 each time it had to <br /> 21 <br />