Missler v. Board of Appeals of the County of Hawai'i

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0002347 15-SEP-2017 03:43 PM SCWC-13-0002347 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ________________________________________________________________ CAAP-13-0002347 RICHARD MISSLER and PATRICIA MISSLER, Petitioners/Appellants-Appellees, vs. BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI I; B.J. LEITHEAD-TODD, Planning Director, Department of Planning, County of Hawai i, Respondents/Appellees-Appellants, and MALAMA INVESTMENTS LLC, a Hawai i limited liability company; LOREN SAXTON and MARY SAXTON, Co-Trustees of the Saxton Trust dated March 17, 2005, Respondents/Appellee-Appellees and CAAP-13-0002752 RICHARD MISSLER and PATRICIA MISSLER, Petitioners/Appellants-Appellees, vs. B.J. LEITHEAD-TODD, Respondent/Appellee-Appellant, and BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI I; MALAMA INVESTMENTS LLC, a Hawai i limited liability company; LOREN SAXTON and MARY SAXTON, Co-Trustees of the Saxton Trust dated March 17, 2005, Respondents-Appellee-Appellees and CAAP-13-000340 RICHARD MISSLER and PATRICIA MISSLER, Petitioners/Appellants-Appellees, vs. BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI I; MALAMA INVESTMENTS LLC, a Hawai i limited liability company; LOREN SAXTON and MARY SAXTON, Co-Trustees of the Saxton Trust dated March 17, 2005; and PLANNING DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, COUNTY OF HAWAI I, Respondents/Appellees-Appellees ________________________________________________________________ CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CIVIL NO. 12-1-449K) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama and McKenna, JJ., and Pollack, J., dissenting, and Wilson, J., dissenting) Petitioners/Appellants-Appellees Richard Missler and Patricia Missler’s application for writ of certiorari filed on August 2, 2017, is hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, September 15, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.