purpose of correcting error in Hawaii

2026See Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 76 Hawaiʻi 128, 133, 870 P.2d 1272, 1277 (1994) ("[T]hough a lower court is found to have lacked jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction here on appeal, not of the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in jurisdiction." (citation omitted)).

2026See Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 76 Hawaiʻi 128, 133, 870 P.2d 1272, 1277 (1994) ("[T]hough a lower court is found to have lacked jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction here on appeal, not of the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in jurisdiction." (citation omitted)).

2010Accordingly, “[w]hen reviewing a ease where the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court retains jurisdiction, not on the merits, but for the purpose of correcting the error in jurisdiction.” Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai'i 152, 159 , 977 P.2d 160, 167 (1999).

2010Accordingly, “[w]hen reviewing a ease where the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court retains jurisdiction, not on the merits, but for the purpose of correcting the error in jurisdiction.” Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai'i 152, 159 , 977 P.2d 160, 167 (1999).

2014It is axiomatic that if "a lower court is found to have lacked jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction [] on appeal, not of the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in jurisdiction." In re Rice, 68 Haw. 334, 335 , 713 P.2d 426, 427 (1986) (emphasis added).

2014It is axiomatic that if "a lower court is found to have lacked jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction [] on appeal, not of the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in jurisdiction." In re Rice, 68 Haw. 334, 335 , 713 P.2d 426, 427 (1986) (emphasis added).

1994Therefore, “ ‘[s]uch a question is valid at any stage of the case, and though a lower court is found to have lacked jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction here on appeal, not of the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in jurisdiction.’ ” Chun v. Employees’ Retirement Sys., 73 Haw. 9, 14 , 828 P.2d 260, 263 , reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625 , 829 P.2d 859 (1992) (quoting In re Application of Rice, 68 Haw. 334 , 713 P.2d 426 (1986)).

1994Therefore, “ ‘[s]uch a question is valid at any stage of the case, and though a lower court is found to have lacked jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction here on appeal, not of the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in jurisdiction.’ ” Chun v. Employees’ Retirement Sys., 73 Haw. 9, 14 , 828 P.2d 260, 263 , reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625 , 829 P.2d 859 (1992) (quoting In re Application of Rice, 68 Haw. 334 , 713 P.2d 426 (1986)).

1999See id.

1997Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2024See Lingle, 107 Hawai‘i at 182-83, 111 P.3d at 591-92 (“When reviewing a case where the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court retains jurisdiction . . . for the purpose of correcting the error in jurisdiction.”). 16 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** B.

2023Moreover, "though a lower court is found to have lacked jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction here on appeal, not of the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in jurisdiction." Curtis v. Bd. of Appeals, Cnty. of Hawai‘i, 90 Hawai‘i 384, 393, 978 P.2d 822, 831 (1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2023"When reviewing a case where the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court retains jurisdiction, not on the merits, but for the purpose of correcting the error in jurisdiction." Kaaukai v. Cnty. of Maui, 126 Hawai‘i 124, 267 P.3d 708 , No. 29387, 2012 WL 149871 at *5 (App. Jan. 18, 2012) (SDO) (brackets omitted) (quoting Koga Eng'g & Constr., Inc. v. State, 122 Hawai‘i 60, 84, 222 P.3d 979, 1003 (2010)).

2006“Generally, the requirements of standing to appeal are: (1) the person must first have been a party to the action; (2) the person seeking modification of the order or judgment must have had standing to oppose it in the trial court; and (3) such person must be ... ‘one who is affected or prejudiced by the appealable order.’ ” Kepo‘o v. Watson, 87 Hawai'i 91, 95 , 952 P.2d 379, 383 (1998) (quoting Waikiki Malia Hotel, Inc. v. Kinkai Props., Ltd.

2006"Generally, the requirements of standing to appeal are: (1) the person must first have been a party to the action; (2) the person seeking modification of the order or judgment must have had standing to oppose it in the trial court; and (3) such person must be ... `one who is affected or prejudiced by the appealable order.'" Kepo`o v. Watson, 87 Hawai`i 91, 95, 952 P.2d 379, 383 (1998) (quoting Waikiki Malia Hotel, Inc. v. Kinkai Props., Ltd.

2006Workers, Local 616 v. Brown, 80 Hawai'i 376, 379 , 910 P.2d 147, 150 (App.1996) (“[B]ecause standing is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be addressed at any stage of the case, ... we have jurisdiction here on appeal, not of the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in jurisdiction.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)).

2006Workers, Local 646 v. Brown, 80 Hawai`i 376, 379, 910 P.2d 147, 150 (App. 1996) ("[B]ecause standing is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be addressed at any stage of the case, ... we have jurisdiction here on appeal, not of the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in jurisdiction." (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)).

1996Comm’n, 77 Hawai'i 396, 398 , 885 P.2d 1137, 1139 (App.1994) (quoting Chun v. Employees’ Retirement Sys., 73 Haw. 9, 14 , 828 P.2d 260, 263 , reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625 , 829 P.2d 859 (1992)).

1996Comm’n, 77 Hawai'i 396, 398 , 885 P.2d 1137, 1139 (App.1994) (quoting Chun v. Employees’ Retirement Sys., 73 Haw. 9, 14 , 828 P.2d 260, 263 , reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625 , 829 P.2d 859 (1992)).

1986“Such a question is in order at any stage of the case, and though a lower court is found to have lacked jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction here on appeal, not of the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in jurisdiction.” Meyer v. Territory, 36 Haw. at 78 (citation omitted).