Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Oral Agrument Before the Supreme Court

NO. SCAP-11-0000611 Thursday, May 24, 2012, 9 a.m.

PAULETTE KA`ANOHIOKALANI KALEIKINI, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. WAYNE YOSHIOKA, in his official capacity as Director of the City and County of Honolulu’s Department of Transportation Services; CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; HONOLULU CITY COUNCIL; PETER CARLISLE, in his official capacity as Mayor; CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES; CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING; WILLIAM AILA, JR., in his official capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources and state historic preservation officer; PUAALAOKALANI AIU, in her official capacity as administrator of the State Historic Preservation Division; BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES; DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES; NEIL ABERCROMBIE, in his official capacity as Governor; and O`AHU ISLAND BURIAL COUNCIL, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant: David Kimo Frankel and Ashley K. Obrey

Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees William J. Aila, Jr., Puaalaokalani Aiu, etc.: David M. Louie, Attorney General, and William J. Wynhoff, Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees Wayne Yoshioka, City & County of Honolulu, etc.: Robert C. Godbey, Corporation Counsel; Don S. Kitaoka and Gary Y. Takeuchi, Deputies Corporation Counsel; John P. Manaut and Lindsay N. McAneeley, Special Deputies Corporation Counsel

NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 01/17/12.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Simeon R. Acoba, Jr., filed 02/21/12.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge R. Mark Browning, in place of Associate Justice Simeon R. Acoba, Jr., filed 02/27/12.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice James E. Duffy, Jr., filed 02/29/12.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Fa`auuga To`oto`o, in place of Associate Justice James E. Duffy, Jr., filed 03/13/12.

COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, & SSM, JJ; Circuit Court Judge R. Mark Browning, in place of Associate Justice Simeon R. Acoba, Jr., recused; and Circuit Court Judge Fa`auuga To`oto`o, in place of Associate Justice James E. Duffy, Jr., recused.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Plaintiff-appellant Paulette Ka`anohiokalani Kaleikini seeks review of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s final judgment, entered pursuant to its order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Wayne Yoshioka, in his official capacity as Director of the City and County of Honolulu’s Department of Transportation Services; the City and County of Honolulu; the Honolulu City Council; Peter Carlisle, in his official capacity as Mayor; the City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services; the City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting; William J. Aila, Jr., in his official capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources and state historic preservation officer; Puaalaokalani Aiu, in her official capacity as administrator of the State Historic Preservation Division; the Board of Land and Natural Resources; the Department of Land and Natural Resources; and Neil Abercrombie, in his official capacity as Governor.

Kaleikini argues that the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project should be enjoined because the Programmatic Agreement and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project permitted a “phased approach” to the required archeological inventory survey (AIS), rather than requiring that an AIS for all four phases of the project be completed prior to approval and commencement of the project. Kaleikini argues that the phased approach to the AIS violates HRS chapters 6E, 343, and 205A. In response, the City and State defendants argue that a phased approach is legally permissible.