mootness doctrine in Hawaii

2025Lethem v. Lethem, 119 Hawai i 1, 5, 193 P.3d 839, 843 (2008) (setting forth the elements of the mootness doctrine). 3 See Order Granting Motion for Stay, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX docket no. 212. 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER purportedly supersedes the writ Bondurant challenged; accordingly, we will deny the request to dismiss the appeal from the Writ Order without prejudice to Hawaiian Ranchos raising the issue in its answering brief.

2024Lethem, 119 Hawaiʻi at 8, 193 P.3d at 846 (concluding that the reputational harm to a father’s appeal of an expired temporary restraining order based on allegations of abuse of his daughter, fell within the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine) (cleaned up). 26 ** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ** The Domingos argue the collateral consequences exception applies based on the ICA’s decision in Bank of New York Mellon v. DeShaw, Nos.

2016Nevertheless, this court has “repeatedly recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine in eases involving questions that affect the public interest and are ‘capable of repetition yet evading review.’” Okada Trucking Co., Ltd. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 99 Hawai'i 191, 196 , 53 P.3d 799, 804 (2002) (citations omitted).

2016Nevertheless, this court has “repeatedly recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine in eases involving questions that affect the public interest and are ‘capable of repetition yet evading review.’” Okada Trucking Co., Ltd. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 99 Hawai'i 191, 196 , 53 P.3d 799, 804 (2002) (citations omitted).

2024Kahoʻohanohano v. State, 114 Hawaiʻi 302, 329 n.19, 162 P.3d 696 , 723 n.19 (2007) ("[T]he general rule that an appellate court is limited to the records and facts in the lower court's proceedings, is subject to the right of an appellate court in a proper case to take judicial notice of new developments not considered by the lower court.") (cleaned up); Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Hawaiʻi 91, 110 n.9, 969 P.2d 1209 , 1228 n.9 (1998) ("an appellate court may in its discretion, take judicial notice of files or records of a case on appeal") (cleaned up). 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AN

2022We have said the suit must remain alive throughout the course of litigation to the moment of final appellate disposition to escape the mootness bar. 5 As the Circuit Court's dismissal of Count II was based on mootness and the court did not reach any other issue, our review is limited to whether Appellants' claim was moot. 24 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Kaho#ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai#i 302, 332, 162 P.3d 696, 726 (2007) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Kona Old Hawaiian Trails Group v. Lyman, 69 Haw. 81, 87 , 734 P.2d 161, 165 (1987)).

2022We have said the suit must remain alive throughout the course of litigation to the moment of final appellate disposition to escape the mootness bar. 5 As the Circuit Court's dismissal of Count II was based on mootness and the court did not reach any other issue, our review is limited to whether Appellants' claim was moot. 24 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Kaho#ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai#i 302, 332, 162 P.3d 696, 726 (2007) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Kona Old Hawaiian Trails Group v. Lyman, 69 Haw. 81, 87 , 734 P.2d 161, 165 (1987)).

2022We have said the suit must remain alive throughout the course of litigation to the moment of final appellate disposition to escape the mootness bar. 5 As the Circuit Court's dismissal of Count II was based on mootness and the court did not reach any other issue, our review is limited to whether Appellants' claim was moot. 24 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Kaho#ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai#i 302, 332, 162 P.3d 696, 726 (2007) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Kona Old Hawaiian Trails Group v. Lyman, 69 Haw. 81, 87 , 734 P.2d 161, 165 (1987)).

2021Thus, the mootness doctrine is properly invoked where "events . . . have so affected the relations between the parties that the two conditions for justiciability relevant on appeal—adverse interest and effective remedy—have been compromised." In re Thomas, 73 Haw. 223, 226 , 832 P.2d 253, 254 (1992) (citation omitted).

2021Thus, the mootness doctrine is properly invoked where "events . . . have so affected the relations between the parties that the two conditions for justiciability relevant on appeal—adverse interest and effective remedy—have been compromised." In re Thomas, 73 Haw. 223, 226 , 832 P.2d 253, 254 (1992) (citation omitted).

2016Thus, the mootness doctrine is properly invoked where “events ... have so affected the relations between the parties that the two conditions for justiciability relevant on appeal—adverse interest and effective remedy—have been compromised.” Wong v. Board of Regents, University of Hawai'i, 62 Haw, 391, 394, 616 P.2d 201, 203-4 (1980).

2016Thus, the mootness doctrine is properly invoked where ‘events ... have so affected the relations between the parties that the two conditions for justiciability relevant on appeal— adverse interest and effective remedy—have been compromised.’ ” (quoting Wong v. Bd. of Regents, Univ. of Haw., 62 Haw. 391, 394 , 616 P.2d 201, 203-04 (1980)).

2022In determining whether the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies, Hawai#i courts consider "(1) the public or private nature of the question presented, (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination for future guidance of public officers, and (3) the likelihood of future recurrence of the question." Doe v. Doe, 116 Hawai#i 323, 327, 172 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2007) (citations and internal quotation 25 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER marks omitted); see also Yoshimura v. Kaneshiro, 149 Hawai#i 21, 35, 481 P.3d 28, 42 (2021).

2021In addition, none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: public interest, see Doe v. Doe, 116 Hawai#i 323, 327, 172 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2007); "capable of repetition yet evading review," see State v. Tui, 138 Hawai#i 462, 468, 382 P.3d 274, 280 (2016); or "collateral consequences," see Hamilton ex rel.

2012We first recognized the mootness exception for matters that are capable of repetition yet evading review in Life of the Land v. Burns, 59 Haw. 244 , 580 P.2d 405 (1978).

2012We first recognized the mootness exception for matters that are capable of repetition yet evading review in Life of the Land v. Burns, 59 Haw. 244 , 580 P.2d 405 (1978).

2013However, this court has "repeatedly recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine in cases involving questions that affect the public interest and are 'capable of repetition yet evading review.’ ” Okada Trucking II, 99 Hawai'i at 196 , 53 P.3d at 799 (quoting CARL Corp., 93 Hawai'i at 165 , 997 P.2d at 577 ).

2013However, this court has "repeatedly recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine in cases involving questions that affect the public interest and are 'capable of repetition yet evading review.’ ” Okada Trucking II, 99 Hawai'i at 196 , 53 P.3d at 799 (quoting CARL Corp., 93 Hawai'i at 165 , 997 P.2d at 577 ).

2016Regarding the public-interest exception: A public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine arises “when the question involved affects the public interest and it is likely in the nature of things that similar questions arising in the future would likewise become moot before a needed authoritative determination by an appellate court.” Johnston v. Ing, 50 Haw. 379, 381 , 441 P.2d 138, 140 (1968).

2016Regarding the public-interest exception: A public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine arises “when the question involved affects the public interest and it is likely in the nature of things that similar questions arising in the future would likewise become moot before a needed authoritative determination by an appellate court.” Johnston v. Ing, 50 Haw. 379, 381 , 441 P.2d 138, 140 (1968).

2021In addition, none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: public interest, see Doe v. Doe, 116 Hawai#i 323, 327, 172 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2007); "capable of repetition yet evading review," see State v. Tui, 138 Hawai#i 462, 468, 382 P.3d 274, 280 (2016); or "collateral consequences," see Hamilton ex rel.

2020None of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: public interest, see Doe v. Doe, 116 Hawai#i 323, 327, 172 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2007); "capable of repetition yet evading review," see State v. Tui, 138 Hawai#i 462, 468, 382 P.3d 274, 280 (2016); or "collateral consequences," see Hamilton ex rel.

2026Lethem v. Lethem, 119 Hawai#i 1, 5, 193 P.3d 839, 843 (2008) (quoting Lathrop v. Sakatani, 111 Hawai#i 307, 312-13, 141 P.3d 480, 485-86 (2006)).

2020Sakuma failed to obtain a stay of the sale transaction, the completed sale of the Property rendered this appeal moot, and, upon review, no exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. [Lathrop v. Sakatani, 111 Hawai#i 307, 313-315, 141 P.3d 480, 486-88 (2006).] Id. at *2.

2025Lethem v. Lethem, 119 Hawai#i 1, 5, 193 P.3d 839, 843 (2008) (quoting Lathrop v. Sakatani, 111 Hawai#i 307, 312-13, 141 P.3d 480, 485-86 (2006)). "[A] case is moot if the reviewing court can no longer grant effective relief." Kaho#ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai#i 302, 332, 162 P.3d 696, 726 (2007) (emphasis and original brackets omitted) (quoting Kemp v. State of Hawai#i Child Support Enf't Agency, 111 Hawai#i 367, 385, 141 P.3d 1014, 1032 (2006)). 6.

2025Lethem v. Lethem, 119 Hawai#i 1, 5, 193 P.3d 839, 843 (2008) (quoting Lathrop v. Sakatani, 111 Hawai#i 307, 312-13, 141 P.3d 480, 485-86 (2006)). "[A] case is moot if the reviewing court can no longer grant effective relief." Kaho#ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai#i 302, 332, 162 P.3d 696, 726 (2007) (emphasis and original brackets omitted) (quoting Kemp v. State of Hawai#i Child Support Enf't Agency, 111 Hawai#i 367, 385, 141 P.3d 1014, 1032 (2006)). 6.

2016“Among the criteria considered in determining the exis tence of the requisite degree of public interest are the public or private nature of the question presented, the desirability of an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers, and the likelihood of future recurrence of the question.” Id. (quoting In re Brooks’ Estate, 32 Ill.2d 361, 364 , 205 N.E.2d 435, 438 (1965))[.] Id (brackets omitted).

2016The circumstances are such that an authoritative determination on this issue is desirable in order to provide guidance for public officers in the County of Kaua‘i. Another exception to the mootness doctrine arises when the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evades review.” Id.

2023See McCabe Hamilton & Renny Co., Ltd. v. Chung, 98 Hawai‘i 107, 121, 43 P.3d 244, 258 (App. 2002) (recognizing that "the imposition of issue preclusion where appellate review has been frustrated due to mootness is obviously unfair" and vacating the subject orders, "which are 'unreviewable because of mootness, from spawning any legal consequences'" (quoting Aircall of Haw., Inc. v. Home Properties, Inc., 6 Haw. App. 593, 595-96 , 733 P.2d 1231 , 1232- 33 (1987))); Lethem, 119 Hawai‘i at 11, 193 P.3d at 849 (adopting the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine, and concluding

2013Thus, the mootness doctrine is properly invoked where ‘events ... have so affected the relations between the parties that the two conditions for justicia-bility relevant on appeal — adverse interest and effective remedy — have been compromised.’ McCabe Hamilton & Renny Co. v. Chung, 98 Hawai'i 107, 116-17 , 43 P.3d 244, 253-54 (App.2002) (quoting In re Thomas, 73 Haw. 223, 225-26 , 832 P.2d 253, 254 (1992)).

2008For example, in Mahiai v. Suwa, 69 Haw. 349, 354-55 , 742 P.2d 359, 365 (1987), the Hawaii Supreme Court uses both the two-prong approach in Wong and the formulation in Kona Old Hawaiian Trails Group v. Lyman, 69 Haw. 81, 87 , 734 P.2d 161, 165 (1987), to articulate the mootness doctrine. 5 .

2008For example, in Mahiai v. Suwa, 69 Haw. 349, 354-55 , 742 P.2d 359, 365 (1987), the Hawaii Supreme Court uses both the two-prong approach in Wong and the formulation in Kona Old Hawaiian Trails Group v. Lyman, 69 Haw. 81, 87 , 734 P.2d 161, 165 (1987), to articulate the mootness doctrine. 5 .

2025For Our Rights v. Ige, 151 Hawai i 1, 12, 507 P.3d 531, 542 (App. 2022) (citations omitted).

2022Id. at 12, 507 P.3d at 542 (citation omitted).

2007See Yogi , 101 Hawai`i at 58, 62 P.3d at 201 (Acoba, J., concurring) (stating that, "[a]t this stage in our jurisprudence, our appellate courts have merged two, sometimes overlapping, yet distinct exceptions to the mootness doctrine: the `public interest' exception and the `capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception"); see also Avis K.

2007See Yogi, 101 Hawai'i at 58 , 62 P.3d at 201 (Acoba, J., concurring) (stating that, "[a]t this stage in our jurisprudence, our appellate courts have merged two, sometimes overlapping, yet distinct exceptions to the mootness doctrine: the 'public interest’ exception and the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception"); see also Avis K.

2023Under Hawaiʻi law, a well-recognized exception to the mootness doctrine is for matters “affecting the public interest.” See State v. Kiese, 126 Hawaiʻi 494, 509, 273 P.3d 1180, 1195 (2012).

2021See State v. Kiese, 126 Hawai#i 494, 508-09, 273 P.3d 1180, 1194-95 (2012); Hamilton, 119 Hawai#i at 5, 10, 193 P.3d at 843, 848 ; see also Flores v. Ballard, 149 Hawai#i 81, 88, 88 n.7, 482 P.3d 544, 551 , 551 n.7 (App. 2021). 3

2017Among these is the doctrine of mootness, which typically limits our rulings to “live controvers[ies] of the kind that must exist if courts are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law.” Kona, 69 Haw. at 87 , 734 P.2d at 165 (quoting Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48 (1969)).

2017Among these is the doctrine of mootness, which typically limits our rulings to “live controvers[ies] of the kind that must exist if courts are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law.” Kona, 69 Haw. at 87 , 734 P.2d at 165 (quoting Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48 (1969)).

2016See, e.g., Kaho'ohanohano, 114 Hawai'i at 333 n.23, 162 P.3d at 727 n.23; Lethem, 119 Hawai'i at 5 , 193 P.3d at 843 (“[T]his court has explicitly recognized two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception; and (2) the public interest exception.” (bracketed text omitted)).

2011ANK contends that “[a]ssuming the court based its decision in whole or in part on mootness, the court clearly erred.” ANK asserts that its claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are not moot because the issue of the constitutionality of Chapter 103F qualifies for an exception to the mootness rule, being “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” ANK cites to Kaho’ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai'i 302, 332-33 , 162 P.3d 696, 726-27 (2007) (issue was not moot even though Act fully implemented), to argue that “[wjhether or not the underlying DOE contract has concluded ha[s] no bearing on wh

2025The Public Interest Exception “In determining whether the public interest exception applies, this court considers[:] (1) the public or private nature of the question[s] presented, (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination for future guidance of public officers, and (3) the likelihood of future recurrence of the question[s].” Id. (quoting Kaleikini v. Thielen, 124 Hawai‘i 1, 13, 237 P.3d 1067, 1079 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2013Id. at 12-13 , 237 P.3d at 1078-79 .

2022Under the mootness doctrine, this court will generally refrain from deciding a case that has “lost its character as a present, live controversy,” and in which “the reviewing court can no longer grant effective relief.” In re Marn Family, 141 Hawaiʻi 1, 7, 403 P.3d 621 , 627 (2016) (quoting Cnty. of Haw. v. Ala Loop Homeowners, 123 Hawaiʻi 391, 405, 235 P.3d 1103 , 1117 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** (2010), abrogated on other grounds by Tax Found. of Haw. v. State, 144 Hawaiʻi 175, 439 P.3d 127 (2019)).

2022Under the mootness doctrine, this court will generally refrain from deciding a case that has “lost its character as a present, live controversy,” and in which “the reviewing court can no longer grant effective relief.” In re Marn Family, 141 Hawaiʻi 1, 7, 403 P.3d 621 , 627 (2016) (quoting Cnty. of Haw. v. Ala Loop Homeowners, 123 Hawaiʻi 391, 405, 235 P.3d 1103 , 1117 22 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** (2010), abrogated on other grounds by Tax Found. of Haw. v. State, 144 Hawaiʻi 175, 439 P.3d 127 (2019)).

2012United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO v. Yogi, 101 Hawai'i 46, 59 , 62 P.3d 189, 203 (2002) (Acoba, J., concurring).

2007See Yogi, 101 Hawai'i at 58 , 62 P.3d at 201 (Acoba, J., concurring) (stating that, "[a]t this stage in our jurisprudence, our appellate courts have merged two, sometimes overlapping, yet distinct exceptions to the mootness doctrine: the 'public interest’ exception and the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception"); see also Avis K.