Laserfiche WebLink
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> according to Appellant, the County' s objection on this point is <br /> misplaced, inasmuch as Appellant has only requested -fees as to <br /> one of the issues on appeal, the issue of damages, a point on <br /> which it is undisputed that Appellant was successful . <br /> However, the County argues in its Reply that in fact, <br /> "upon review of all of the invoices, [Appellant] has sought <br /> attorneys' fees for matters not related to the appeal of <br /> Condemnation I . " Specifically, the County objects to the <br /> following: <br /> BILL Date of Attorney Description Hours Reason to <br /> DATE Service Exclude <br /> February 1/14/08 MMM Review of . 80 Matsuda v. <br /> 20, 2008 Ninth Circuit Honolulu had <br /> case . 60 no relevance <br /> 1/14/08 RHT Review on issue of <br /> Matsuda case damages <br /> June 25, 5/23/08 RHT Review . 30 Matsuda v. <br /> 2008 Matsuda cert Honolulu and <br /> petition and abatement <br /> opposition have no <br /> 5/26/08 CHKC Review 3 . 00 relevance on <br /> County' s issue of <br /> brief; damages <br /> research on <br /> abatement <br /> July 23, 6/17/08 RHT County' s . 10 Case <br /> 2008 Application transferred, <br /> to Transfer County <br /> case to prevailed on <br /> Hawaii its <br /> Supreme Court Application <br /> 6/234/0 RHT Memo in . 80 to Transfer <br /> 8 [sic] Opposition to case <br /> Transfer <br /> 27 <br />