Case Details

Court

Updates: SCWC-25-0000025, originally scheduled for Oct. 6, 2026 is continued to a later date. Scroll down for case details. 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2026 – 2 P.M.

NO. SCWC-23-0000575

ANDREW KINGMAN, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ATLANTIS SUBMARINES HAWAI‘I, LLC, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee. 

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant ANDREW KINGMAN:
     Joachim P. Cox and Randall C. Whattoff of Cox Fricke LLP and Andrew R. Gould of Hicks Johnson PLLC, admitted pro hac vice, J. Kyle Findley, Adam Lewis, and John G. Grinnan, Jr. of Arnold & Itkin LLP, admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee ATLANTIS SUBMARINES HAWAI‘I, LLC:
     Normand R. Lezy, Michael J. Nakano, Shawn L.M. Benton, and Gregory Y.P. Tom of Cox, Wootton, Lerner, Griffin & Hansen, LLP, and Deirdre Marie-Iha and Kellie K.L. Wong of Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Steven R. Nichols due to a vacancy, filed 08/10/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/24/26.

NOTE: Amended Memo of Setting dated 10/01/26 amended for the purpose of:
     -Adding Attorneys Deirdre Marie-Iha and Kellie K.L. Wong. Notice of Appearance filed 09/21/26.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Nichols assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

Andrew Kingman sued his employer Atlantis Submarines Hawai‘i. This appeal arises from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s discovery sanction against Kingman for failing to appear at his court-ordered deposition. The sanction barred Kingman from entering any evidence originating with him. Shortly after, the circuit court entered summary judgment against him.

Kingman appealed the sanctions order. He argued the circuit court’s order was too severe, and that the court ruled on an issue not presented to it. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order. It found the circuit court acted within its discretion to impose the order.

This court accepted certiorari on:

     (1) whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it imposed the sanction, and

     (2) whether this court should adopt the principle of party presentation.

NO. SCPW-26-0000498

RALPH S. CUSHNIE and TAMARA MCKAY, Petitioners, vs. SCOTT T. NAGO, in his official capacity as Chief Election Officer, State of Hawai‘i, OFFICE OF ELECTIONS, State of Hawai‘i, and ELECTIONS COMMISSION, State of Hawai‘i, Respondents.

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Self-Represented Petitioners, RALPH S. CUSHNIE and TAMARA MCKAY

Attorneys for Respondents SCOT T. NAGO, in his official capacity as Chief Election Officer, State of Hawai‘i, and OFFICE OF ELECTIONS, State of Hawai‘i :

     Randall S. Nishiyama and Nietzsche L. Tolan, Deputy Attorneys General, and Aaron Schulaner, General Counsel

NOTE:     Certificate of Recusal by Chief Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 07/14/26.

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Peter T. Cahill, in place of Devens, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Dyan M. Medeiros, due to a vacancy, filed 07/15/26.

NOTE:     Order setting Oral Argument for Friday, 10/16/26 at 10:00 AM, filed 10/05/26.

COURT:    McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Cahill, in place of Devens, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Medeiros, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This petition for a writ of mandamus requests that the court compel the Office of Elections to provide staff support to the Hawai‘i Elections Commission.

On June 30, 2026, Elections Commission Chair Michael Curtis’ term as chairperson expired.  The Commission was left without a Chair.

On July 1, 2026, the Elections Commission prepared a notice for a meeting to be held on July 8, 2026, to address the chairperson vacancy.  The Commission requested staff support from the Office of Elections, as set out in Hawai‘i Revised Statute (HRS) § 11-1.5(b).  The support from the Office of Elections helps to fulfill statutory notice requirements.  The Office of Elections declined to provide staff support for the meeting, and the meeting did not occur. 

Election Commissioners Ralph Cushnie and Tamara McKay bring this writ of mandamus to compel the Office of Elections to provide support for the Elections Commission meeting.  They argue the Office of Elections is required to provide staff support to the Commission under HRS § 11-1.5(b), and the Office violates the law by refusing to do so.  This refusal has prevented the Commission from holding a meeting in compliance with HRS chapter 92, part I, commonly referred to as the Sunshine Law.

This court ordered the Office of Elections to respond and answer (1) whether the Office failed or refused to provide staff support to the Elections Commission and (2) whether that failure or refusal prevented the Elections Commission from meeting to elect a chairperson.

The Office of Elections answers that it provides staff support in response to actions passed by a majority of the Elections Commission or at the request of the Commission Chair, neither of which is present here.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

NO. SCWC-24-0000323

NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on behalf of Mari and Vaigai, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES and its DIRECTOR, DITA HOLIFIELD, and the HONOLULU ZOO DIRECTOR, JOHN BERRY, Respondents/Respondents-Appellees.

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

Punahou School
Dilingham Hall 
1601 Punahou Street
Honolulu, HI 96822

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on behalf of Mari and Vaigai:

        Cheryl Nolan, Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Inc. and Jake Davis of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc., admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Respondents/Respondents-Appellees CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES and its DIRECTOR, DITA HOLIFIELD, and the HONOLULU ZOO DIRECTOR, JOHN BERRY:

        Jacqueline M. De Leeuw Huang and Patricia A.V. Sendao, Deputies Corporation Counsel

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge James H. Ashford due to a vacancy, filed 05/15/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/10/26.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Ashford, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. (NhRP) petitioned the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Mari and Vaigai, two Asian elephants residing at the Honolulu Zoo.  The petition sought an evidentiary hearing to show cause why the elephants should not be released “to an elephant sanctuary accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries.”

The City and County of Honolulu, Department of Enterprise Services (DES), Director of DES Dita Holifield, and Honolulu Zoo Director John Berry moved to dismiss the petition.  The circuit court granted the motion and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed.

In affirming the circuit court, the ICA held that Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 660 supersedes the common law writ of habeas corpus, and under that chapter, elephants are not “persons” for whom relief is available.  NhRP subsequently appealed to this court.

There are two issues before the court:

1. Does HRS chapter 660 supersede the common law writ of habeas corpus?
2. If HRS chapter 660 does not supersede the common law writ of habeas corpus, does the common law writ apply to non-human animals such as Mari and Vaigai?

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

NO. SCWC-23-0000334

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL ARLO PAVICH, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2^nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813 

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant MICHAEL ARLO PAVICH:
     Steven Slavitt

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Richard B. Rost, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge James H. Ashford due to a vacancy, filed 06/18/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 07/21/26.

COURT:    Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Ashford assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This is the second appeal in this case.  In 2006, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Michael Arlo Pavich (Pavich) was convicted of second-degree murder, first-degree burglary, kidnapping, first-degree robbery, and a drug paraphernalia charge.

     At trial, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi (State) relied on DNA analysis of blood-stained napkins recovered from the victim’s apartment, as well as DNA expert testimony that Pavich was a “major contributor” to one of the napkin stains.  That expert testimony was based on a supplemental DNA report.  After a jury found Pavich guilty, the circuit court denied his post-trial request for funds for a DNA expert to conduct a peer review of the supplemental report and for a new trial.  Pavich appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).

     In the first appeal, the ICA held the circuit court erred in denying Pavich funds to hire an expert to conduct a peer review of the supplemental DNA report.  State v. Pavich, 119 Hawaiʻi 74, 77, 85, 193 P.3d 1274, 1277, 1285 (App. 2008).  The ICA remanded the case to give Pavich an opportunity to conduct the peer review and to file a motion for a new trial based on the results of the peer review.  Id. at 86, 193 P.3d at 1286.  On remand, in 2009, Pavich decided not to pursue the peer review or to request a new trial, and the circuit court concluded Pavich had made an intelligent, knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights.

     Years later, in 2017, Pavich requested post-conviction relief asserting he did not intentionally, knowingly, or voluntarily waive his right to pursue peer review.  Pavich later filed motions to withdraw his waiver.  The parties then discovered that the napkins with blood-like stains, which had been held by the Maui Police Department, had been disposed of in November 2011.

     In April 2023, the circuit court entered an order denying, among other things, Pavich’s motion to withdraw his waiver (April 2023 Order).  Pavich appealed the April 2023 Order, which the ICA affirmed.

     The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court accepted Pavich’s application for certiorari.  Pavich asserts he is entitled to post-conviction relief based on the failure to retain the napkins which allegedly contained DNA evidence, in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 844D-123 and § 844D-126.

NO. SCWC-25-0000484

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. OSCAR KANOA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant OSCAR KANOA:
     Harrison L. Kiehm

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Robert T. Nakatsuji, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE:     Certificate of Recusal by Chief Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 08/18/26.

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Ashford, in place of Devens, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Kawashima, due to a vacancy, filed 09/15/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/02/26.

COURT:    McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Ashford, assigned in place of Devens, C.J., recused, and Judge Kawashima, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This is the second appeal in this case.  The current appeal arises out of an order reducing Petitioner/Defendant Oscar Kanoa’s (Kanoa) bail from $2,000,000 to $750,000 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).

In an initial trial, a jury found Kanoa guilty of Reckless Manslaughter, a class A felony, and the Circuit Court issued its Judgment of Conviction and Sentence imposing a sentence of twenty years imprisonment.

In the first appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the Judgment and remanded.  State v. Kanoa, No. CAAP-23-0000368, 2024 WL 3862056, at *4 (Haw. App. Aug. 19, 2024), cert. denied No. SCWC-23-0000368, 2025 WL 448941 (Haw. Feb. 10, 2025).

On remand awaiting a new trial, Kanoa moved to reduce bail from $2,000,000 to $100,000.  The Circuit Court granted Kanoa’s motion in part and denied it in part, setting bail at $750,000.  The ICA affirmed the Circuit Court’s order.

The Supreme Court accepted Kanoa’s application for certiorari.  Kanoa contends the ICA gravely erred in concluding that under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 804-9 (Supp. 2025), bail is reasonable “even when the amount of bail exceeds the criminal defendant’s assets.”  Kanoa also asserts the ICA erred by indicating that the bail amount is reasonable when the defendant can afford the bail bond fee to a bondsperson, i.e., five to fifteen percent of the total amount of bail set.

Updated on September 17, 2026 — No. SCWC-25-0000025, originally scheduled for Oct. 6, 2026, 2 p.m., is continued to later date. 

FRIENDS OF MĀHĀ‘ULEPŪ, Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant, vs. KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF KAUA‘I, Respondent/Nominal Appellee-Appellee, and RP21 COCO PALMS LLC and COCO PALMS HUI LLC, Respondents/Intervenors Appellees-Appellees.

Attorneys for Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant FRIENDS OF MĀHĀ‘ULEPŪ:
     Lance D. Collins of the Law Office of Lance D. Collins,
     Bianca Isaki of the Law Office of Bianca Isaki, and
     Ryan D. Hurley of the Law Office of Ryan D. Hurley, LLLC    

Attorney for Respondent/Nominal Appellee-Appellee KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF KAUA‘I:
     Chris Donahoe, Deputy County Attorney    

Attorneys for Respondents/Intervenors Appellees-Appellees RP21 COCO PALMS LLC and COCO PALMS HUI LLC:
     Calvert G. Chipchase, Mauna Kea Trask, and Keola R. Whittaker of Cades Schutte

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge John M. Tonaki due to a vacancy, filed 07/30/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/13/26.

COURT:    Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Tonaki, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This appeal arises from Kaua‘i Planning Commission’s (KPC) denial of Friends of Māhā‘ulepū’s (FOM) petition to revoke permits authorizing redevelopment of the Coco Palms Resort in Wailua, Kaua‘i.  In November 2023, FOM petitioned to revoke the permits, alleging violations of numerous conditions and injury to its members’ constitutionally protected interests.  Coco Palms Hui LLC and RP21 Coco Palms LLC (together, CPH) moved to intervene and oppose FOM’s petition.

On March 12, 2024, KPC held a public hearing and ruled on FOM’s revocation petition and CPH’s intervention motion.  It denied FOM’s revocation petition.  It granted CPH’s intervention.  FOM appealed. 

The Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the agency record and entered judgment for KPC and CPH.  FOM appealed again.  The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) ordered the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14.

This court accepted certiorari on two questions presented in FOM’s application.  FOM asks whether the ICA gravely erred by:

     (1) ruling the circuit court lacked jurisdiction under HRS chapter 91, the Hawai‘i Administrative Procedures Act “on this record” because – as to FOM’s asserted rights to a clean and healthful environment and to exercise customary and traditional Native Hawaiian rights – FOM did “not argue how the test set forth a contested case hearing under [our case law] demonstrates that a contested case was required by constitutional due process,” and

     (2) concluding the KPC did not conduct a contested case hearing on FOM’s petition where KPC concluded it had conducted a contested case and CPH intervened in the same pursuant to KPC rules referring to the original matter as a contested case