Makanui v. State, Department of Human Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION *** NO. 26391 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I NANCY MAKANUI, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. STATE OF HAWAI#I, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; DIRECTOR DR. SUSAN CHANDLER, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAI#I; DR. PATRICIA SNYDER, ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES, SOCIAL SERVICES DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAI#I; DEPUTY DIRECTOR PATRICIA MURAKAMI, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAI#I; ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR KATHLEEN STANLEY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAI#I; BRANCH ADMINISTRATOR NOREEN MOON-NG & COMMUNITY CARE BRANCH SOCIAL SERVICES DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAI#I; NORMAN NISHIKI, ADULT COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES, EAST HAWAI#I, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Defendants-Appellees APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 02-1-155) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that we do not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff-Appellant Nancy Makanui s (Appellant Makanui) appeal from the February 20, 2004 order denying Appellant Makanui s motion for summary judgment. As a general matter, this court s jurisdiction over an appeal is limited to a review of final judgments, orders and decrees. Hawai#i Revised Statutes § 641-1(a) (1985). Judgment is not final in a case until all claims of the parties have been terminated. Ciesla v. Reddish, 78 Hawai#i 18, 20, 889 P.2d 702, 704 (1995) (citation omitted). The February 20, 2004 order denying Appellant Makanui s motion for summary judgment did not terminate any of the claims, and, thus, the February 20, 2004 *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION *** order is interlocutory and not appealable absent permission under HRS § 641-1(b) or Rule 54(b), HRCP, as applicable. Jacober v. Sunn, 5 Haw. App. 20, 25, 674 P.2d 1024, 1028 (1984) (citation and footnote omitted). Appellant Makanui neither sought nor obtained the circuit court s permission to appeal the February 20, 2004 order pursuant to HRS § 641-1(b) (1993) or Rule 54(b) of the Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the February 20, 2004 order does not qualify as an appealable final order under the Forgay doctrine or the collateral order doctrine. See Ciesla v. Reddish, 78 Hawai#i at 20, 889 P.2d at 704 (regarding the Forgay doctrine); Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai#i 319, 321-22, 966 P.2d 631, 633-34 (1998) (regarding the collateral order doctrine). Therefore, this appeal is premature and we lack appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 12, 2004. 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.
