Miller and Lieb Water Co., Application of, 8362

• Decision Date: 29 September 1982
• Docket Number: No. 8362,8362
• Citation: 651 P.2d 486,65 Haw. 310
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application of MILLER AND LIEB WATER COMPANY, INC. for approval of rate increases, revised rate schedules, and for an interim rate increase.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 486

651 P.2d 486

65 Haw. 310

In the Matter of the Application of MILLER AND LIEB WATER COMPANY, INC. for approval of rate increases revised rate schedules, and for an interim rate increase.

No. 8362.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Sept. 29, 1982.

Reconsideration Denied Oct. 18, 1982.

Syllabus by the Court

An appeal merits dismissal where appellant's opening brief is rendered virtually incomprehensible by appellant's failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 3(b)(5) which requires that where the points relied upon as error consist of findings or conclusions of the tribunal below, (1) those findings or conclusions must be quoted in the concise statement of points upon which appellant intends to rely and (2) that there shall be included in that statement, a statement of the particulars wherein the findings or conclusions are alleged to be erroneous.

Roy M. Miyamoto, Honolulu, on briefs, for appellant.

Ronald Shigekane, Honolulu, on brief, for appellee Consumer Advocate.

Harry S. Y. Kim, Honolulu, atty. of record, for appellee Public Utilities Com'n (no answering brief filed).

Before RICHARDSON, C. J., and LUM, NAKAMURA, PADGETT and HAYASHI, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decision and order by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) dated August 28, 1980, fixing rates pursuant to an application by appellant therefore, and from a decision and order denying a motion for reconsideration of the first order dated October 3, 1980. We affirm.

Appellant filed an application for approval of rate increase, revised rate schedule and for an interim rate increase. The consumer advocate recommended a lesser increase. After a hearing, the PUC issued detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law and fixed the rates well below appellant's request. Appellant then moved for reconsideration on 14 grounds. Many of those grounds were general in nature without specifics, as the Commission noted. The Commission, after considering the motion, denied the same and this appeal followed.

Our Rule 3(b)(5) provides in part:

[T]he appellant shall file an opening brief, containing ...:

(5) A concise statement of the points on which appellant intends to rely, set forth in separate, numbered paragraphs.... .... When the point involves findings or conclusions of the court below, those urged as error shall be quoted and there shall be included a statement of the particulars wherein the findings of fact or conclusions of law are alleged to be erroneous....

Appellant has completely failed to follow the provision just quoted. As a consequence, appellant's opening brief is virtually incomprehensible. As stated in the Answering Brief of the appellee:

Appellant's arguments are nothing more than vague conclusory statements which do not specify (1) how the Public Utilities Commission ... committed error, (2) why it was error for the Commission to rule in a particular manner, nor (3) how Appellant was prejudiced by the alleged error. Indeed, throughout Appellant's brief, it is difficult to discern exactly what it is that Appellant is contesting. (Answering Brief at p. 3.)

Appellant's failure to abide by the rule quoted merits dismissal of the appeal. We have,...