Kau v. City and County of Honolulu

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the ICA erred in remanding the issue of whether a condemnation “fulfilled the requisite public purpose of [Revised Ordinances of Honolulu] chapter 38” to the trial court because that “issue presents a question of law”
• “[W]hen interpreting a municipal ordinance, we apply the same rules of construction that we apply to statutes. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewable de novo.”
• “‘Legal issues not raised in the trial court are ordinarily deemed waived on appeal.’” (quoting Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., 100 Hawai#i 97, 107, 58 P.3d 608, 618 (2002))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).