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 /> the Condemnation 1 appeal [ , ] " it appears that those entries had <br /> to do with the County' s motion to transfer to this court, a <br /> motion upon which the County prevailed. Therefore, those entries <br /> will also be excluded from the final amount . <br /> As to the County' s objections to entries attributed to <br /> supplementing the Record on Appeal and preparing for oral <br /> argument, Appellant does not address those objections or provide <br /> this court any guidance as to whether the time claimed for those <br /> entries actually applies only to Condemnation 1, or also to <br /> Condemnation 2 . Upon reviewing Appellant' s revised entries as <br /> set forth in its Errata, following the internal audit, it appears <br /> that 18 . 9 hours of attorney time were devoted to supplementing <br /> the Record on Appeal, and 30 . 6 hours were spent preparing for and <br /> attending oral argument in this court . Although Appellant has <br /> claimed that it is only including in the lodestar time spent on <br /> the damages issue, it has conceded to have erroneously included <br /> other items unrelated to Condemnation 1 . Therefore, because <br /> Appellant has failed to argue that the specific entries regarding <br /> supplementing the Record on Appeal and those regarding oral <br /> argument are related in their entirety to Condemnation 1, the <br /> amounts claimed for those entries are excluded from the lodestar <br /> amount . <br /> VII . <br /> Additionally, Appellant, in its Response, requests "the <br /> damages it incurred in filing [or preparing] the Request and this <br /> 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.