The main issue to be determined in this appeal is whether Act 2 enacted in the second special session of the 2007 legislature is constitutional. Sierra Club challenges the constitutionality of Act 2 on three separate grounds: (1) Act 2 is unconstitutional special legislation; (2) Act 2 violates the separation of powers doctrine; and (3) Act 2 violates the due process rights of Sierra Club and the public.
Based on our analysis herein, we hold that Act 2 is unconstitutional as it is a special law in violation of Article XI, section 5 of the Hawai'i Constitution.
Read the rest of the Court's decision
here. Some more from the opinion:
Similarly, in this case Superferry worked hand-in-hand with Dot throughout the planning and implementation of the Superferry project and throughout this litigation, in promoting its own private business interests. Under these facts, we see no unfairness in requiring Superferry, jointly with Dot, to pay Sierra Club's attorney's fees awarded by the ciruit court.
...
DOT and Superferry are jointly liable for the attorney's fees award granted to Sierra Club pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine.
Act 2 having been found to be unconstitutional, the requirements of the general law set forth in HRS chapter 343 are applicable to Superferry. Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the circuit court's final judgement of January 31, 2008 in favor of DOT and Superferry. We affirm, in part, the ciruit court's March 27, 2008 order granting (1) Sierra Club attorney's fees in the about of $86,270.28 against DOT and Superferry jointly based on the private attorney general doctrine, and (2) costs in the reduced amount of $4,532.09 against DOT and Superferry jointly. We further remand this case to the circuit court for such other and further disposition of any remaining claims as may be appropriate and consistent with this opinion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment