public interest exception in Hawaii

2024"When analyzing the public interest exception, this court looks to (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." Id. at 6- 7, 193 P.3d at 844-45 (cleaned up).

2024"When analyzing the public interest exception, this court looks to (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." Id. at 6- 7, 193 P.3d at 844-45 (cleaned up).

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).

2021See, e.g., Moana v. Wong, 141 Hawaiʻi 100, 107 n.9, 405 P.3d 536 , 543 n. 9 (2017) (“Although the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception has ‘merged at times’ with the similar public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, ‘they are, in fact, “separate and distinct.”’”); Doe v. Doe, 116 Hawaiʻi 323, 327 n.4, 172 P.3d 1067 , 1071 n.4 (2007) (same); Kahoʻohanohano v. State, 114 Hawaiʻi 302, 333 n.23, 162 P.3d 696 , 727 n.23 (2007) (same). 31 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER *** applicable to impeachment of public officials; (2) determinat

2025A. The circuit court erred in holding that Plaintiffs’ claims were moot The public interest exception to mootness applies to Plaintiffs’ claims. “[W]hen the question involved affects the public interest and an authoritative determination is desirable for the guidance of public officials, a case will not be considered moot.” Kahoʻohanohano, 114 Hawaiʻi at 333, 162 P.3d at 727.

2025A. The circuit court erred in holding that Plaintiffs’ claims were moot The public interest exception to mootness applies to Plaintiffs’ claims. “[W]hen the question involved affects the public interest and an authoritative determination is desirable for the guidance of public officials, a case will not be considered moot.” Kahoʻohanohano, 114 Hawaiʻi at 333, 162 P.3d at 727.

2014We determined the case was not moot because the shoreline certification satisfied the elements of the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, specifically, it was “a matter of vast public importance” and was “ ‘capable of repetition yet evading review.’ ” Id. (citing Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 99 Hawai'i 191, 196-97 , 53 P.3d 799, 804-05 (2002)).

2014We determined the case was not moot because the shoreline certification satisfied the elements of the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, specifically, it was “a matter of vast public importance” and was “ ‘capable of repetition yet evading review.’ ” Id. (citing Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 99 Hawai'i 191, 196-97 , 53 P.3d 799, 804-05 (2002)).

2021There remains an adversity of interests here because the Planning Director made a “final determination” that “the evidence” showed Bolton’s construction activity was covered by its existing permits, and Hualalai has an interest in arguing 18 The public interest exception applies “[w]hen the question involved affects the public interest, and it is likely . . . that similar questions arising in the future would likewise become moot before a needed authoritative determination by an appellate court can be made[.]” Id. (quoting Johnston v. Ing, 50 Haw. 379, 381 , 441 P.2d 138, 140 (1968)).

2021There remains an adversity of interests here because the Planning Director made a “final determination” that “the evidence” showed Bolton’s construction activity was covered by its existing permits, and Hualalai has an interest in arguing 18 The public interest exception applies “[w]hen the question involved affects the public interest, and it is likely . . . that similar questions arising in the future would likewise become moot before a needed authoritative determination by an appellate court can be made[.]” Id. (quoting Johnston v. Ing, 50 Haw. 379, 381 , 441 P.2d 138, 140 (1968)).

2022The "public interest" exception does not apply because the question presented is of a private nature, id. at 7, 193 P.3d at 845 (holding that father's appeal failed to meet the first prong of the public interest exception because his appeal from a temporary restraining order was of purely personal nature), and does not require "an authoritative determination for future guidance of public officers," id. at 6-7, 193 P.3d at 844-45 ; see also Carl Corp. v. State, Dept. of Educ., 93 Hawai#i 155, 165, 997 P.2d 567, 577 (2000) (holding that the subject controversy did not qualify under the public in

2022The "public interest" exception does not apply because the question presented is of a private nature, id. at 7, 193 P.3d at 845 (holding that father's appeal failed to meet the first prong of the public interest exception because his appeal from a temporary restraining order was of purely personal nature), and does not require "an authoritative determination for future guidance of public officers," id. at 6-7, 193 P.3d at 844-45 ; see also Carl Corp. v. State, Dept. of Educ., 93 Hawai#i 155, 165, 997 P.2d 567, 577 (2000) (holding that the subject controversy did not qualify under the public in

2002While the evading review language has been applied without discussion of a public interest exception, see In re Application of Thomas, 73 Haw. 223, 227 , 832 P.2d 253, 255 (1992); Ariyoshi v. Hawai'i Pub.

2002While the evading review language has been applied without discussion of a public interest exception, see In re Application of Thomas, 73 Haw. 223, 227 , 832 P.2d 253, 255 (1992); Ariyoshi v. Hawai'i Pub.

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

2008See Yogi, 101 Hawai`i at 58-62, 62 P.3d at 201-05 (Acoba, J., concurring); see also Paoi, Hawaii's Justiciability Doctrine, 26 U. Haw.

2008Although the age of the younger daughter is not specifically reflected in the record, both parties appear to agree that she is currently a minor [hereinafter, Minor-sister]. [9] We note that the McCabe court did not address the merits of appellant's appeal but, nevertheless, vacated the TRO issued by the circuit court and remanded the case for dismissal in order to prevent the TRO, "which [was] unreviewable because of mootness, from spawning any legal consequences." 98 Hawai`i at 121, 43 P.3d at 258 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). [10] As support for this proposition, the Put

2002See Okada Trucking v. Board of Water Supply, 99 Hawai'i 191, 196 , 53 P.3d 799, 804 (2002) (“[W]e have 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.’ ” (Citations omitted.)); Carl Corp. v. State, 93 Hawai'i 155, 165 , 997 P.2d 567, 577 (2000) (outlining the “capable of repetition exception,” then stating that “the present case clearly involves matters of public concern”); McCabe Hamilton & Renny Co. v. Chung, 98 Hawai'i 107, 120 , 43 P.3d 244, 257 (App.2002) (“In sum, w

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)).

2010The public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine arises “when the question involved affects the public interest and an authoritative determination is desirable for the guidance of public officials[.]” Kaho‘ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai'i 302, 323 , 162 P.3d 696, 727 (2007) (quoting Slupecki v. Admin.

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).

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).

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)).

2023In determining whether the public interest exception applies, the court considers: "(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." Carmichael, 150 Hawai#i at 561, 506 P.3d at 225 (quoting Kaleikini v. Thielen, 124 Hawai#i 1, 12–13, 237 P.3d 1067 , 1078–79 (2010)).

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

2008See Yogi, 101 Hawai'i at 58-62 , 62 P.3d at 201-05 (Acoba, J., concurring); see also Paoi, Hawaii’s Jus-ticiability Doctrine, 26 U. Haw.

2026Caetano argues "she is a full-time resident of Hawai#i with limited means and resources and has been since April of 2022." She maintains she "cannot afford to travel to California nor to litigate the case there." That argument goes to the "balance of conveniences" analysis. "[A]lthough the plaintiff's choice of forum is an important factor, if the balance of conveniences suggests that trial in the chosen forum would be unnecessarily burdensome for the defendant or the court, dismissal is proper." Lesser, 88 Hawai#i at 263, 965 P.2d at 805 (quotation marks omitted).

2026Caetano argues "she is a full-time resident of Hawai#i with limited means and resources and has been since April of 2022." She maintains she "cannot afford to travel to California nor to litigate the case there." That argument goes to the "balance of conveniences" analysis. "[A]lthough the plaintiff's choice of forum is an important factor, if the balance of conveniences suggests that trial in the chosen forum would be unnecessarily burdensome for the defendant or the court, dismissal is proper." Lesser, 88 Hawai#i at 263, 965 P.2d at 805 (quotation marks 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

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).

2017Ala Loop, 123 Hawaii at 405, 235 P.3d at 1117 (“[T]he ICA’s ruling that there is no private right of action under chapter 205 ‘inject[ed] the requisite degree of public concern’ in support of having the public interest exception apply.” (quoting Doe, 116 Hawaii at 327, 172 P.2d at 1071)); Hamilton ex rel.

2017This court reviews three factors in analyzing the public interest exception: “(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.” Cty. of Haw. v. Ala Loop Homeowners, 123 Hawaiʻi 391, 405, 235 P.3d 1103, 1117 (2010) (quoting Doe v. Doe, 116 Hawaiʻi 323, 327, 172 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2007)). 9 The ICA also cited to In re T-Mobile West Corp., No. CAAP-12- 0001117, 2013 WL 1501028 (App. Apr. 11, 2013) (order granting motion to dismiss app

2016See Right to Know Comm. v. City Council, City & County of Honolulu, 117 Hawai'i 1, 9 , 175 P.3d 111, 119 (App. 2007) (discussing the applicability of both exceptions to the mootness doctrine).

2016See Right to Know Comm. v. City Council, City & County of Honolulu, 117 Hawai'i 1, 9 , 175 P.3d 111, 119 (App. 2007) (discussing the applicability of both exceptions to the mootness doctrine).

2012See Nishimura v. Williams, 126 Hawai'i 115, 119 , 267 P.3d 699, 703 (App.2011) (question of whether Kauai county clerk properly accepted candidate’s nomination papers excepted from mootness doctrine); cf. Johnston v. Ing, 50 Haw. 379, 382, 441 P.2d 138, 140 (1968) (the form and content of an official ballot is a “matter of substantial public moment”).

2012See Nishimura v. Williams, 126 Hawai'i 115, 119 , 267 P.3d 699, 703 (App.2011) (question of whether Kauai county clerk properly accepted candidate’s nomination papers excepted from mootness doctrine); cf. Johnston v. Ing, 50 Haw. 379, 382, 441 P.2d 138, 140 (1968) (the form and content of an official ballot is a “matter of substantial public moment”).