The “When” of Chevron: The Missed Opportunity of County of Maui

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, DANIEL FOLSOM

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and rising 3L Daniel Folsom comment on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, in which the Court interpreted a provision of the Clean Water. Estreicher and Folsom argue that the case presented an opportunity to clarify the murky question of when the Chevron doctrine applies, yet the Court avoided answering that question.

Read More

The Unnecessary Protection of Qualified Immunity

JOANNA C. SCHWARTZ, SETH STOUGHTON

UCLA law professor Joanna C. Schwartz and South Carolina law professor Seth W. Stoughton address some of the arguments commonly asserted to support qualified immunity, the doctrine that shields police officers from civil liability for constitutional violations. Schwartz and Stoughton argue that eliminating qualified immunity should not affect police decision-making and that existing Supreme Court doctrine gives police officers plenty of leeway to make mistakes without violating the Constitution. Because qualified immunity applies only to unreasonable actions by police officers, eliminating or substantially restricting it should not a chilling effect on police officers’ ability or willingness to respond to critical incidents.

Read More

McKenna v. Association of Apartment Owners of Elima Lani

Docket: SCWC-16-0000284

Opinion Date: June 25, 2020

Judge: Paula A. Nakayama

Areas of Law: Contracts, Real Estate & Property Law

In this case arising from settlement negotiations between Plaintiff and Defendants relating to a dispute about water and mold damage to Plaintiff's condominium the Supreme Court remanded this case with instruction that the circuit court hold an evidentiary hearing to address issues of fact as to the terms and existence of a purported settlement agreement between the parties. At the close of a settlement conference, the circuit court and the parties acknowledged that the parties had reached a settlement. Plaintiff, however, refused to sign the settlement documents and proceeded to represent herself pro se. Defendants filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The circuit court granted the motion, concluding that the parties had entered into a binding settlement agreement but that the proposed written settlement agreement contained terms beyond those agreed to at the settlement conference. Therefore, the court struck those terms and created a revised settlement agreement. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the parties reached a valid settlement agreement and as to which terms the parties agreed to at the settlement conference, the circuit court should have granted Plaintiff's motion for an evidentiary hearing to resolve those issues.

State v. Alkire

Docket: SCWC-17-0000638

Opinion Date: June 25, 2020

Judge: Sabrina S. McKenna

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII), holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to compel. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) as to Defendant's speedy trial challenges, Haw. R. Penal P. 48 requires a "meaningful" commencement of trial, a trial is "meaningfully" commenced when a trial court reasonably commits its resources to the trial, and this holding applies prospectively to events occurring after publication of this decision; (2) the prosecutor in this case was not required to personally review files of the testifying police officers; and (3) the district court abused its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to compel production of a video recording showing Defendant at the police station after her arrest because the video recording was material to Defendant's defense and her request was reasonable.