2005-05-06 Answering Brief Re Ainaola Development

Home

3. Res Judicata Applies to Administrative Adjudications "The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel also apply to matters litigated before an administrative agency." State v. Higa, 79 Hawaii 1, 8, 897 P.2d 928, 935 (1995); recon. den., 79 Hawaii 1, 897 P.2d 928 (1995); Santos v. State, 64 Haw. 648, 653, 646 P.2d 962, 966 (1982). In Santos, a union member sued for the same claims which he had previously brought before the Hawaii Public Employment Relations Board ("HPERB"). HPERB found in Santos' favor, but the Circuit Court reversed. Santos failed to further appeal. Thus, Santos was barred from relitigating those same issues. Santos v. State, 64 Haw. at 656, 646 P.2d at 967. "Where a party does not appeal a final administrative decision that decision becomes final and res judicata." Hawkins v. State, 183 Ariz. 100, 900 P.2d 1236, 1240 (Ariz. Ct.App. 1995); see also United States v. Utah Constr. &Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422, 86 S.Ct. 1545, 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966) ("When an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolved disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the courts have not hesitated to apply res judicata to enforce repose." "The doctrine of res judicata applies when three conditions are present: (1) the issue in the prior adjudication is identical to the present one; (2)there was a final judgment on the merits; and (3)the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party, or was in privity with a party, in the prior adjudication." State v. Higa, 79 Hawaii 1, 8, 897 P.2d at 935. Here, it is the indisputable foundation of this case that ADC applied for and obtained Use Permit No. 106, with its Condition No. 7, via contested case proceedings in 1992. It is undisputed that Condition No. 7 was part of the Use Permit, and that ADC had full opportunity to litigate the factual and legal merits of that Condition before the Planning Commission. 11