My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008-06-13_County_of_Hawaii_v._Coupe_Family_and_Robert_Nigel_Richards_-_Application_for_Transfer_to_the_Supreme_Court
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Court Documents
>
2008-06-13_County_of_Hawaii_v._Coupe_Family_and_Robert_Nigel_Richards_-_Application_for_Transfer_to_the_Supreme_Court
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2011 4:30:26 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 4:28:58 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
damages (beyond amounts awarded for just compensation)but rather is within the discretion of <br /> the trial court; and (2)the trial court did not abuse its discretion because (a) even if the Court's <br /> condemnation order in Civil No. 05-1-15K is reversed on appeal, the County would not likely be <br /> required to physically restore the property because the County would simply file another <br /> condemnation action(on the grounds that the public necessity for the road, the best location and <br /> the physical needs for construction, maintenance and operation compel the County to acquire the <br /> property), and(b)the Coupes did not present any evidence that the County would not be in a <br /> financial position to restore the property if ordered to do so. (R.O.A., 00-1-181K, V.42/00535, <br /> and 05-1-15K,V.29/01056.) The Coupes did not file a reply memorandum regarding the Motion <br /> to Vacate Possession Order. <br /> On February 8, 2008,the Coupes filed their Notice of Appeal in Civil No. 00-1-181K of <br /> the denial of the Motion for Statutory Damages on the grounds that the trial court is deemed to <br /> have denied the motion by not ruling on it within 90 days pursuant to HRAP 4(a)(3). (S.R.O.A., <br /> 00-1-181K, V.43/00542, and 05-1-15K,V.30/01063.) <br /> On March 13,2008,the trial court entered its order denying the Motion to Vacate <br /> Possession Order on the grounds that: (1)the motion was untimely under HRCP Rule 59; <br /> (2) even if the motion was timely under HRCP Rule 62, no additional amount is needed to cover <br /> any further damage in the event that this issue is reversed on appeal because the County can file <br /> another condemnation action; and(3)there is no dispute that the County would not have the <br /> financial ability to pay any additional damages. (S.R.O.A., 00-1-181K,V.43/00548, and 05-1- <br /> 15K, V.30/01069.) <br /> On March 31, 2008, the Coupes filed, with the Intermediate Court of Appeals, a Motion <br /> to Vacate Order Putting [the County] in Possession Pending Appeal and Accounting for <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.