Robinson v. Ariyoshi

Hawaii Supreme Court

Robinson v. Ariyoshi

726 P.2d 1133, 66 Haw. 528, 1983 Haw. LEXIS 150

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1983

DocketNO. 8241

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 726 P.2d 1133 (Robinson v. Ariyoshi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 726 P.2d 1133, 66 Haw. 528, 1983 Haw. LEXIS 150 (haw 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellees have filed timely motions for reconsideration of the decision in this case, 65 Haw. 641, 658 P.2d 287 (1982).

Alexander C. Marrack (Hoddick, Reinwald, O’Connor & Marrack) for plaintiffs-appellees Selwyn R. Robinson, et al. J. Russell Cades (Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright) for defendant-appellee McBryde Sugar Co. William F. Quinn (Goodsill', Anderson, Quinn & Stifel) for defendant-appellee Olokele Sugar Co. on the motions.

We decline to grant the relief sought by appellees. There is one point raised by appellees, however, which warrants clarification. In part I of our answer to Certified Question No. 5, relying on abbreviated court minutes, we indicated that in the rehearing to the McBryde case, oral argument was presented on the issue of whether the decision in McBryde constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property. Id. at 660, 658 P.2d at 301. Affidavits furnished by appellees’ counsel who were present at the McBryde rehearing state that no such oral argument was allowed.

Assuming that appellees’ counsel are correct, we would not modify the conclusion reached in part I of our answer to Question 5. That conclusion was based on (1) the fact that under the court’s rehearing procedures, appellees were allowed to, and in fact proceeded to, argue the constitutional issues in their petitions for rehearing and accompanying memoranda; and (2) the availability of further review by the United States Supreme Court. We remain satisfied that appellees were provided sufficient opportunity to raise their constitutional claims, and thus find no reason to modify the result reached in our answer to Question 5.

The motions for reconsideration are denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appellees have filed timely motions for reconsideration of the decision in this case, 65 Haw. 641, 658 P.2d 287 (1982).

Alexander C. Marrack (Hoddick, Reinwald, O’Connor & Marrack) for plaintiffs-appellees Selwyn R. Robinson, et al. J. Russell Cades (Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright) for defendant-appellee McBryde Sugar Co. William F. Quinn (Goodsill', Anderson, Quinn & Stifel) for defendant-appellee Olokele Sugar Co. on the motions.

We decline to grant the relief sought by appellees. There is one point raised by appellees, however, which warrants clarification. In part I of our answer to Certified Question No. 5, relying on abbreviated court minutes, we indicated that in the rehearing to the McBryde case, oral argument was presented on the issue of whether the decision in McBryde constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property. Id. at 660, 658 P.2d at 301. Affidavits furnished by appellees’ counsel who were present at the McBryde rehearing state that no such oral argument was allowed.

Assuming that appellees’ counsel are correct, we would not modify the conclusion reached in part I of our answer to Question 5. That conclusion was based on (1) the fact that under the court’s rehearing procedures, appellees were allowed to, and in fact proceeded to, argue the constitutional issues in their petitions for rehearing and accompanying memoranda; and (2) the availability of further review by the United States Supreme Court. We remain satisfied that appellees were provided sufficient opportunity to raise their constitutional claims, and thus find no reason to modify the result reached in our answer to Question 5.

The motions for reconsideration are denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

726 P.2d 1133, 66 Haw. 528, 1983 Haw. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-ariyoshi-haw-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack