Pele Defense Fund v. Paty

• Decision Date: 28 September 1992
• Docket Number: No. 15373,15373
• Citation: 837 P.2d 1247,73 Haw. 578
• Parties: PELE DEFENSE FUND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William PATY, in his capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii, Moses Kealoha, Douglas Ing, Leonard Zalopany, John Arisumi and Herbert Arata, in their capacity as members of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, the Estate of James Campbell, Deceased, Fred E. Trotter, W.H. McVay, P.R. Cassidy, and Herbert C. Cornuelle, in their fiduciary capacity as Trustees under the Will of James Campbell, Deceased, True Energy Geothermal Corp., True Geothermal Drilling Co., and Mid-Pacific Geothermal, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 1247

837 P.2d 1247

73 Haw. 578

PELE DEFENSE FUND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William PATY, in his capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii, Moses Kealoha Douglas Ing, Leonard Zalopany, John Arisumi and Herbert Arata, in their capacity as members of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, the Estate of James Campbell, Deceased Fred E. Trotter, W.H. McVay, P.R. Cassidy, and Herbert C Cornuelle, in their fiduciary capacity as Trustees under the Will of James Campbell, Deceased, True Energy Geothermal Corp., True Geothermal Drilling Co., and Mid-Pacific Geothermal, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15373.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Sept. 28, 1992.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A claim may be brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (§ 1983) to enforce federal rights created by § 5(f) of the Hawaii Admission Act although the Admission Act itself does not create an implied right of action under which a party could enforce the duties and obligations created by the Act in federal court.

2. Regardless of the standing theory, the crucial inquiry is whether the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of the court's jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf.

3. Hawaii has adopted a broad view of what constitutes a "personal stake" in cases where the rights of the public might otherwise be denied hearing in a judicial forum.

4. A member of the public has standing to sue to enforce the rights of the public generally if he or she can show that he or she has suffered an injury in fact and that the concerns of a multiplicity of suits are satisfied.

5. A plaintiff has suffered injury in fact when (1) he or she has suffered an actual or threatened injury as a result of the defendant's wrongful conduct, (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's actions, and (3) a favorable decision would likely provide relief for plaintiff's injury.

6. A membership corporation has standing to sue on behalf of its members when the alleged injuries are "generalized" injuries for which relief granted to the organization would provide a remedy to any individual member.

7. Federal law dictates the characterization of claims brought under § 1983, but the applicable limitations period is a matter of state law.

8. A single, most appropriate statute of limitations for all § 1983 claims is to be selected in each state. Section 1983 claims are best characterized as personal injury actions; thus a state's personal injury statute of limitations should be applied to all § 1983 claims.

9. Where a state has more than one statute of limitations for personal injury actions, the residual or general personal injury statute of limitations applies to all § 1983 claims.

10. In Hawaii, HRS § 657-7 is the general personal injury statute of limitations. The two-year statute of limitations in HRS § 657-7 applies to all § 1983 claims brought in Hawaii.

11. The statute of limitations for a breach of the § 5(f) trust, brought under § 1983, runs from the date that the cause of action accrues--that is, when plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the breach of trust, the injury to plaintiff, and the connection between the breach and the injury.

12. The judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is a bar to a new action in any court between the same parties or their privies concerning the same subject matter and precludes the relitigation, not only of the issues which were actually litigated in the first action, but also of all grounds of claim and defense which might have been properly litigated in the first action but were not litigated or decided.

13. Collateral estoppel is an aspect of res judicata which precludes the relitigation of a fact or issue which was previously determined in a prior suit on a different claim between the same parties or their privies. Collateral estoppel also precludes relitigation of facts or issues previously 14. The principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel are tempered only by the prerequisite that a plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the relevant issues in the earlier litigation.

determined when it is raised defensively by one not a party in a prior suit against one who was a party in that suit and who himself raised and litigated the fact or issue.

15. The rule against splitting a cause of action is an aspect of res judicata and precludes the splitting of a single cause of action or an entire claim either as to the theory of recovery or the specific relief demanded.

16. The Hawaii Supreme Court is not precluded from finding that the Hawaii Constitution affords greater protection than required by similar federal constitutional or statutory provisions.

17. As the highest court of this sovereign state, the Hawaii Supreme Court will interpret and enforce the state constitution not in total disregard of federal interpretations, but with reference to the wisdom of adopting these interpretations for our state.

18. A suit brought to protect the res of the public lands trust, and thereby enforce the mandates of article XII, § 4 of the Hawaii Constitution is appropriate in Hawaii courts.

19. Article XII, § 4 imposes a fiduciary duty on Hawaii's officials to hold ceded lands in accordance with the § 5(f) trust provisions, and the citizens of the State must have a means to mandate compliance.

20. A non-profit membership corporation, whose members are beneficiaries of the public lands trust, may bring suit for the limited purpose of enjoining state officials' breach of trust by disposal of trust assets in violation of the Hawaii constitutional and statutory provisions governing the public lands trust.

21. Sovereign immunity is not a bar to suit for injunctive relief when state officials acting in their official capacities act ultra vires of state and federal law.

22. It is the unquestioned rule that the State cannot be sued without its consent or waiver of its immunity in matters involving the enforcement of contracts, treasury liability tort, and the adjudication of an interest in property acquired by the government. However, sovereign immunity may not be invoked as a defense by state officials who comprise an executive department of government when their action is attacked as being unconstitutional.

23. The sovereign State is immune from suit for money damages, except whether there has been a "clear relinquishment" of immunity and the State has consented to be sued.

24. When a plaintiff requests only prospective injunctive relief, sovereign immunity is not a bar to an official capacity suit against state officials.

25. Relief that is tantamount to an award of damages for a past violation of law, even though styled as something else, is barred by sovereign immunity.

26. Simply asking for injunctive relief and not damages does not clear the path for suit--the question remains whether the effect on the state treasury would be "ancillary" or would be virtual compensation for the past misconduct of state officials.

27. A request to restore the trust status of former public trust lands by means of a constructive trust is "essentially equivalent" to a nullification of the exchange of those lands and the return of the exchanged lands to the trust res. The effect on the state treasury would be direct and unavoidable, rather than ancillary, because imposing a constructive trust on lands now held by a private landowner would require that the State compensate the landowner for its property.

28. Issues not properly raised on appeal will be deemed to be waived.

29. There is no adequate remedy available for alleged breaches of trust absent the trustee's participation.

30. A non-profit corporation, whose stated purpose is to perpetuate Hawaiian religion and culture, has standing to assert violation of article XII, § 7 on behalf of its native Hawaiian members.

31. Lawful occupants of an ahupua'a may, for the purposes of practicing native Hawaiian customs and traditions, enter undeveloped lands within the ahupua'a to gather those items enumerated in HRS § 7-1.

32. The precise nature and scope of rights retained by HRS § 1-1 depend upon the particular circumstances of each case.

33. The 1978 Constitutional Convention Committee on Hawaiian Affairs added what is now article XII, § 7 to reaffirm the customarily and traditionally exercised rights of native Hawaiians, while giving the State the power to regulate these rights.

34. Article XII, § 7 reaffirms all rights customarily and traditionally held by ancient Hawaiians.

35. Native Hawaiian rights protected by article XII, § 7 may extend beyond the ahupua'a in which a native Hawaiian resides where such rights have been customarily and traditionally exercised in this manner.

Alan T. Murakami (Melody K. MacKenzie, Paul Nahoa Lucas, Yuklin Aluli and Steven C. Moore, with him on the briefs, of Native Hawaiian Legal Corp.), Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant

William M. Tam, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, for defendant-appellee State.

James K. Mee (Paul S. Aoki and Keith M. Yonamine, with him on the brief of Ashford & Wriston), Honolulu, for defendants-appellees Campbell Estate and Cornuelle.

Gary B.K.T. Lee (Stephanie A. Rezents, Jason M. Yoshida and Law Clerk Curtis T. Tabata with him, on the brief of Matsubara Lee & Kotake), Honolulu, for defendants-appellees True Geothermal Energy Corp., True Geothermal Drilling Co. and Mid-Pacific Geothermal, Inc.

Before LUM, C.J., and WAKATSUKI ^*, MOON, KLEIN and LEVINSON, JJ.

KLEIN, Justice.

In December, 1985, the State of Hawaii (the State) exchanged approximately 27,800 acres of public "ceded" lands, including the Wao Kele 'O Puna Natural Area Reserve and other Puna lands on the Island of Hawaii, for approximately 25,800 acres of land owned by the Estate of James Campbell, Deceased, (Campbell Estate or Campbell) at Kahauale'a. Plaintiff-Appel...