Laserfiche WebLink
It is further undisputed that Use Permit No. 106 was challenged by other parties before <br /> the Hawaii County Board of Appeals. The Use Permit was upheld by the Board, and the appeal <br /> proceeded through the Third Circuit Court and the Hawaii Supreme Court. Ultimately, Use <br /> Permit No. 106 was upheld. ADC successfully defended Use Permit No. 106, along with <br /> Condition No. 7, through this grueling appeal process. <br /> Moreover, the County granted ADC an administrative extension of the permit in 1994, <br /> and another extension through the Commission in 1998, including Condition No. 7. ADC never <br /> challenged Condition No. 7, since November 1992, instead defending and reaffirming it. Until <br /> now. <br /> Because ADC never appealed the imposition of Condition No. 7, the Planning <br /> Commission's administrative decision to impose the condition "becomes final and res judicata." <br /> Hawkins v. State, 183 Ariz. 100, 900 P.2d 1236, 1240 (Ariz. Ct.App. 1995); United States v. <br /> Utah Constr. &Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422, 86 S.Ct. 1545, 16 L.Ed. 2d 642 (1966); <br /> Santos v. State, 64 Haw. 648, 653, 646 P.2d 962, 966 (1982). Res Judicata `is a bar to a new <br /> action in another court between the same parties or their privies concerning the same subject <br /> matter. It precludes the relitigation, not only of the issues that were actually litigated in the first <br /> action, but also all grounds of claim or defense which might have been litigated in the first action <br /> but were not litigated or decided." Santos v. State, 64 Haw. 648, 652, 646 P.2d 962, 965 (1982). <br /> Hence, ADC is now barred by res judicata, from challenging the Planning Commission's <br /> imposition of Condition No. 7 in Use Permit No 106. This appeal should be denied and <br /> dismissed. <br /> 12 <br />