Arthur v. State, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0000531 12-AUG-2016 10:24 AM SCWC-13-0000531 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ________________________________________________________________ WILLIAM A. ARTHUR, SR., Individually, and THE ESTATE OF MONA ARTHUR thru William A. Arthur, Sr. as the Personal Representative, Respondents/Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees, vs. STATE OF HAWAI I, DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS; KAMEHAMEHA INVESTMENT CORPORATION; DESIGN PARTNERS INC., Respondents/Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellees, and COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; Respondent/Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant; SATO AND ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DANIEL S. MIYASATO, Petitioners/Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants, ____________________ KAMEHAMEHA INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellee, vs. KIEWIT PACIFIC CO., Respondent/Third-Party Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellee ____________________ KIEWIT PACIFIC CO., Respondent/Fourth-Party Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellee, vs. PACIFIC FENCE, INC., Respondent/Fourth-Party Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0000531; CIVIL NO. 05-1-1981-11) ORDER DISMISSING MOTION TO CORRECT, AMEND, MODIFY OR RECONSIDER JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson JJ., and Circuit Judge Browning, in place of Nakayama, J., recused) On August 2, 2016, Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellee, Kamehameha Investment Corporation (“KIC”), filed a Motion to Correct, Amend, Modify or Reconsider Judgment on Appeal (“Motion”). Upon review of the documents and the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that KIC’s Motion is DISMISSED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, August 12, 2016. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ R. Mark Browning 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.