Pele Defense Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing “potential harm including diminished property values, deterioration of air quality, odor nuisance, and possible physical injury resulting from the permitted operations”
• recognizing the “potential harm including diminished property values ... and possible physical injury resulting from the permitted operations”
• “According to HRS § 91-1(5), a discretionary hearing cannot be a ‘contested case’ because it fails to meet the ‘required by law’ test.”
• noting every court must determine \as a threshold matter whether it has jurisdiction to decide the issue presented.\
• “Subject matter jurisdiction is concerned with whether the court has the power to hear a case.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)
• To show standing, a plaintiff must “clearly demonstrate[ ] an ‘injury in fact’ ... traceable to the challenged action[.]” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).