Laserfiche WebLink
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> under Hawaii fee-shifting statutes . Accordingly, the court <br /> must "consider whether [Appellant' s] successful and unsuccessful <br /> claims `involved a common core of facts or were based on related <br /> legal theories [ . ] (Quoting id. ) (Other citation omitted. ) <br /> Applying those legal theories, the County argues that <br /> although Appellant "prevailed on two out of the three" points it <br /> raised on appeal, "the abatement point that [Appellant] did not <br /> prevail on was a point that [it] discussed extensively in its <br /> briefs" and is "totally unrelated and do [es] not involve the same <br /> common core of facts or legal theories to the HRS § 101-27 <br /> statutory damages issue or the pretext public purpose issue . " <br /> Therefore, the County argues that, "all of the attorneys' fees <br /> expended on the abatement issue should be excluded [and] those <br /> billings that are not clear enough to identify what issue they <br /> relate to should be excluded because [Appellant] has the burden <br /> of proving any entitlement to reimbursement for attorneys' fees <br /> and costs . " <br /> To the contrary, Appellant maintains that " [its] <br /> request only seeks damages for the appeal of Condemnation l . " <br /> (Emphasis added. ) The appeal in Condemnation 1 related only to <br /> damages, an issue upon which the County concedes that Appellant <br /> was successful on appeal . Appellant thereby maintains that <br /> " [t] he fees to litigate the second and third points of appeal <br /> (abatement and pretext) were invoiced separately, and were not <br /> included in the present Request . " (Emphases added. ) Thus, <br /> 26 <br />