HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0684.000 1996-1998 ~ ~
o.
i,l~:
Stephen K. Yamashiro Richard Wurdeman
)Vt6yltt Corporation Counsel
o'
ilk 0f•N'it
~01tIt~~I D~ ~2I~1TMt'I
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL ~
101 Aupuni Street, Suire 325 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720.4262 • (808) 961.8251 • Fax (808) 961$62'2' ~ ~ ~
n~
January 21, 1998
Honorable James Arakaki, Chairman
and Members
Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Chairman and Members:
The Hawaii Supreme Court, on January 9, 1998, denied the Motion of Henry Ross for
reconsideration of their earlier order affirming the Circuit Court's decision upholding Ordinance
(95-70) which rezoned that area in Kealakekua, known as the KDC Project.
This should bring an end to this litigation. We are pleased that the actions of the Council
which were challenged in this action have been vindicated.
Sincerely,
r
By
CHARD D. WURDEMAN
Corporation Counsel
RDW:nas
Enclosure
o:arakaki.wpd
war. ~r~:
rec. (.teU- _.IAN~..~,.'~~._~..
NO. 19389
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
HENRY A. ROSS, ) CIV. N0. 95-390
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) THIRD CIRCUIT COr,~Rx
~2l/
vs. ) o~
COUNTY OF HAWAII; MAYOR and ) ^i ~b y
COUNTY COUNCIL of the County ) `j '•i
of Hawaii; PROSECUTING )
ATTORNEY of the County of ) ~ _
Hawaii; DOE GOVERNMENTAL ) U '
AGEivCIES and OTHER LEGAL ) -
ENTITIES 1-10, ) _
ca
Defendants-Appellees. )
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RFrOh, ZD nTZON
Upon consideration of Appellant's motion for
reconsideration and memorandum in support of motion filed on
December 8, 1997 and the record herein, the summary disposition
order filed on October 23, 1997 affirmed the circuit court's
orders on the basis that: (1) Appellant's claims under Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 92 were barred by the statute of
limitations contained in HRS § 92-11 (1993) because the suit was
not commenced within 9u days oL trie final di7 i:ion of ti.E Hawaii
County Council; (2) principles of separation of powers bar the
judiciary from interfering in the prosecutor's decision to bring
criminal charges in all but the most extraordinary of cases, see•
e"a., State v. Rad ; fa, 9 Haw. App. 628, 859 P.2d 925 (1993);
and (3) the council's actions did not violate the Hawaii County
Charter.
~
- , .
Because our affirmance of the circuit court's decision
was based on well-established caselaw and straightforward
application of the relevant statutes and charter provisions, a
full opinion is not warranted. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant's motion for
reconsideration is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 9, 1998.
Henry A. Ross, plaintiff-
appellant pro se
G . L1.moL
~
j pc,,a 'F\-
C