in the supreme court of th! united states of kawali and a'r concerning the latterl, diverllonl....
TRANSCRIPT
•
No . 85-406
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TH! UNITED STATES
OCTOaER TE~, 1985
GEORG! R. ARIYOSBI, !T AL., PETITIONeRS
v.
SE~WYN A. ROBINSON, !T AL.
ON PETITION rOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT or APPEALS
FOR TH! NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
•
CHARLES FlU £0 Solicitor General
F. HENRY HABICHT II assistant Ac=ar noy General
LAWRENC~ G. WA:LACE Deputy Sol :citor Gene~a:
EDWIS s . KX!:~~L!R
Assistant :0 t~e Sc: ~ ci~~= Ge:" .• :a!.
?!:!~ ~ . 5:EE~:AND , JR. ANN~ S. A:'l'I'"
.~:::n neYI
J.pa::~e~: ~~ :UI::C. W4.~,~c:~n. 5.e. 205 30 1202 ) 633-2217
' J ' .
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
QUESTIONS PRIS!NTED
1. Whether. 1913 d.ci.1on of th. supreme Court ot Sawall
con.tituted final 90ve,nmental Iction that could be I "taking" of
r.apon4ent.' rivhtl to waters ot • river 1n that State,
notwithltand1ng a sub.equent decision of the Supreme Court ot
Sawaii that contemplates further proceeding. in Itat. court on
mattera pertaining to respond.n~8- right to divlrt water from the
river.
2. Wheth.r the rejection by the Supreme Court ot lawali ot
re.pondent.- petition. for rehearln9, which contended that that
court'. 1t73 decision re.ulted in a takin9 ot reapondentl'
property without just compensation or due proce •• , con.tituted .•
final aetermination of tne federal claim. that cannot be reviewed
in the ••• eparate proceedin91 in federal court.
3. Whether tne Hawali Supreme Court's rejection of, Of
eailur. to address, re&pondentl' taking claim at the time of the
c~nai4.ration of their rehearin9 petitions deprived them of due
proce •• of law, on the 9round that respondents were not afforded
an adequate opportunity to be heard on the tAking question.
- t -
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
IW THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATtS
OCTOBER TERM, 1985
No. 85-406
GEORGE R. ARI¥OiHI, £T ~., PETITIONERS
Y.
SE~WYN A. ROBINSON, ET ~.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIO~I TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APP&ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIEr FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
Thi, bri,f is lubmitted in response to the Court'.
invitation to the Solicitor General to axpre •• the views of the
United State ••
STATEMENT
Thia ca.e involves the definition of rights to thl use of
the water. of the Hanapepe River on the Island of Kauai in
Hawaii. The court of appeals held that the deciaion of the
Supreme Court of Ha~a,: ir. ~cBrvd. Sugar Co. v. Robinlon, 54 Ha~.
174, 504 P.2d 1380 (1973), appeal di.milsed and Clrt. denied,
417 U.S. 962 (1974), dep. i ved re.pondents of · vested" water
.ights e.tabl i . heci by pr~~r :aw and thereby re.~ lt ed in an
uncon.titutional taking of .espondents' property without the
payment ot just compensat i on. In our view, however, the
.ub"qulnt deci.ion by the Supreme Court of Hawaii on que.tionl
certified to i t by the court below (Pet. App. 14a-55a) makes
clear that the decision in McBryde wa. not a final determination ~~~~~~~~==~
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
- ~ -
of relpondentl' right. that can give rile to a ripe taking claim
under William County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Ham i lton Sank of
Johnlon City, No. 84-4 (June 27, 1985).
1. the watershed of the Hanapepe Ri ver il about 15 miles
10n9 and from two to five mile. Wide. the north.rly portion of
the vaterlhed reachel up toward Mount Naialeale, where the annual
rainfall of 400 to SOO inches il among the heavi.lt in the
world. the lower portion, by contralt, r.ceive. relativ.ly
little r.intall. About halfway down the waterlhed, the Kou1a and
Manuahi Itream. join to form the Hanap.pe Ri ver. The volu.e of
water in the waterlhed generally ranges between 30 Ind 145
million gallonl per day (qpd) . Pet . App. 2001. 202a, 216a.
In the Great Mahe l e or diviaion of Hawaiian land, in the
mid-Nineteenth Century ( ••• Kaiser Aetna Y. United States.
444 U.S. 164, 166-167 (1979)). eh. Ahupuaa of Hanapepe. __ I
roughly equ i va l ent to the watershed of the Hanapepe River and ita
tributari.s, wa. des i gnated as crown land. Pet. App. 200a. The
portion of the water . hed above the confluence of the Manuahi and
KOula i s compr i s.d of lesser division. of l and, ~ nown a. the i 1i .
kupono of Manuahi And Ko ula. wh i Ch are now owned by r •• pondent.
Robinlon, et al. R •• pondent McBryde Sugar Co. owns land in the
Ahupuaa of Hanapepe below the confluence of · the MAnuAhi and Koula
(~. at 201a . 307a ) . The Robinson •• McBryde And the other
r.lpondenta (knOwn as t he sma l l owners ) , as we l l al t he State,
are luecessors i n interest t o the owne rs of .~c i e n t ta:o p!~ t ! i r.
Kahe l e (id. At 224a ) .
2 . geg ~nning in le9~ , Ga y a nd Robin son (G'R ) , bui lt a dam
and a system of di tc hes ~ o de: : v e~ water fr om t he Koula ItreAm " 0
land. out. ide the Hanapepe Va ll ey 1n the ~akaweli watershed (Pet .
App. 203a-20ea). In the lAte 1920 ' s, a dispute aro •• between the
I An ahupuaa i s the l ArgeSt di vi sion of land under the Aneient KiWAii system. See Ka i ser Aetna . 444 U.S. at 167.
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
Territory of Kawali and a'R concerning the latter l, diverllonl.
Th, Territory, al th' owner of the Ahupuaa of Ranapepe, claimed
that 1t va. the owner of all or part of the aurplul wat.r. of the
atre .. , and' lt .ought an injunction barring Gil from dlvertin9
vater 1n dero;aeion of that rl;ht. The patti', Itlpulated to the
exl.tence or "normal daily surplus of water." 1n the lanapep ••
Territory v. GaY, 31 Baw. 376, 317, 381 (1'30), .ff'd, 52 r.2d
35' (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 284 u.s. S77 (1931).
The Supre •• Court of the Territory diamil •• d the Territory's
bill 1n equity, holding that O'R, .1 owner of the 111 kupono,o!
Koul., w •• the owner of the "normal" lurplul vatere (tho •• not
n.eded to •• ti.fy other ri;htl) arilln; on that land. ~. at
388. The Chief Justice would have 90ne further and included
"storm and fre.het" Iurplua water under this rule, overfulln; the
hOldinCJ in Carter Y. Territorj', 24 Ha",. 41 (1'17), that ".term
and fr •• het" surplus water is to be apportioned aecordlnq to the
doctrine of riparian rights. 31 Haw. at 403. A di •• ent1n9
jUltice wa. of the view that both "normal tl and "Itora and
fr •• het" surplul water should ba governed by the 40ctrlne of
riparian ri9hta ~nder the rationale of the Carter deciaien. ~.
at 408-417. The Court of App.als for the Ninth Circuit declined
to di.turb the jUQ9ment of the supreme Court of the Territory on
th.!e que.tions of local property law, 52 F.2d 35' (1931), and
thi1 court ~enied certiorari, 284 U.S. 657 (1931).
3... In the period from 1945 to 1949, G,a and its le.see,
r.lpendent Olokele Sugar Co., Ltd., constructed new del~very
works that increased :he amount of water aiR was able to divert'
trom the Hanapepe watershed (Pee. App. 209.,. This diminished
the amount of wate: availab~e to Mc8ryde. Accordinqly, in 1959,
McBryde commenced An action a9ainat G,a in .tate court, se.kin;
an adjudication that it had appurtenant, prescriptive or rip.rian
right. to 11 ~illion gpd from the Hanapepe and an injunction
barrin9 GIR from diverting water in a manner that interfered with
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
- 4 -
M~Bryd.'. right. (Pet. App. 316a·317.). The State and the small
owner. allo app.ared •• defendant. (~. at 197a-198.).
!he trial court quantified the appurtenant water ri9ht. of
.ach of the parti •• tor ancient taro lAndl. __ I It further held
that G'. va. the owner of !!! of the aurplul water f1owin9 in the
loula and Manuahi .tre.ma. The court recognized that the Supreme
Court of the Territory had held 1n Cartar Y. TerritorY that
It,torm and fr •• het" lurplu8 water va. to be apportioned accordin9
to the doctrine of riparian rl;ht, (Pet. App. 250a) and that the
lub,.quant decision in Territory v. Q~ held only that the
"normal't lurp1uI water be1onged to the owner ot the land on whlct\
the water aro •• (pet. App. 2504-251a). Howevlt, the court
que.tloned whether Carter was ".till the law of Rawaii" anc!
believed that Gay "lnv1te[d} reconsideratlon of the [Carter]
rule- (Pet. App. 251&-252.). __ I
b. On January 19, 19'3, the Supreme Court of Rawaii
Affirmed the award or appurtenant tights for ancient taro lands
(1a. at 175a-1784), although it held that thoae right. apply only
to the lind to which they are appurtenant and do not extend to
the transportation of water to another watersh.d (~. at 178a).
t~e Supreme Court rever •• d the judqment of the trial court
in .11 oth.r respects. It first rejected the trial court'.
hold1n9 that G&R, as owner of i115 of Kou.a an~ Manuahi, owned
all of the .~rp1us water that arose on that land (pet. App. 167a-
1741). Quoting the principles adcpted by t~e ~.nd Commission and
__ I ~h. court fQund the followi~q acres o~ ancient taro lands and corr.sponding water ri9hts: McBryee (9S.21 acres: 4,91S,~OO ;pd): the State (83.27 acres: 4,167,650 9pd),~ t~e small owners (29.11 acrea: l,456,950 9pa), G,R, for lands balow Koula and MAnu.hi (30.63 acre.; l,533,050 9pd). Pet. App. 2181-233a, 246a-250a, 25'a-260a.
I The only exception to the trial court'. awat~ of all surplus water to a •• was tor 2,084,600 qpd that the eourt concluded MCBry~e had acquired as 49ain.t a'R by way of pr •• cr1ption (id. at 214a-215a, 246., 253.-257.,. ~he Hawaii Supreme Court -r.verled that award (id. at 186a-l87a), and it i. not direce:y at i.au. ~.r. (.e. !i .• r-10ea-109a, 266.·267a).
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
- 5 -
approved by the 189il1ature in 1846, the Supreme Court held that
at th. tim. of the Great Mahele, the Kin; did not convey any of
hit lover'igft ri;htl, includlnv the ri9ht Ulto enforce the
uaufruct of landa for the common c;ood III (~. at 113a). ..caule
the right to water i. one of the mo.t important ~.ufruct., the
ri9ht to water WI. re.erved Etfor the people of Hawail tor their
cCXIII.On 900d in .11 the land grants. II ..lliJ!. Accordingly, the
Supte.e Court declared that the State il the owner ot the wat.r
1n tbe loula and Manuahi atre ... and Hanapepe River (!!. at
17.1). The Suprema Court recogni.ed that thil conclu.lon v ••
lncoft.iltent with Territory v. Gay, at 1 •• lt •• regard. dnormal"
.urplul water (Pet. App. 167a). But it concluded that the
relevant atatementa in two of the early deCisions upon whicK the
Territorl.l Supreme Court had relied in GAY were dicta and that
Carter v. Territory, althou9h applyiftq riparian principle. only
to ".torm and freshet" surplus water, was broader 1n It.
r.asoning (Pet. App. 168a-169a). The court also overruled Carter
v. TerritorY, holding that 'tstorm and fr •• het" s1.lrplul watet
1ik.wi •• was re.erved to the State (li- at 181.).
The Supreme Court further held that McBryde, the State, c,a, and other owners of land in the Hana~epe valley have riparian
water ri9ht. under an 1850 Act of the Hawaiian legislature, which
provid •• that U[tJhe people shall alao have a ri9ht to drlnkinq
water, and running ~ater, and the right of wayll (Pet. App. 179a-
180a' n.l?). ~. at 178a-l8Sa. The court expl.ined that these
owners are permitted to use the ~ater flowing 1n the rlvet
without pre~udicin9 the riqhts of others, al~~ou9h this riqht
appertain. only to land adjoining the water course (~. at lBSa).
Finally, the Supreme Court Qoncluded that the j~d9ment in
territory v. Gay wa. tes judicata as bltween the Seate and GIR,
thl only partie. to that c •• e (~. at 164&·16aa). Howevet, the
C~urt observ.d that the hcldinq in ~.rtitoty v. Gay was ba.ed
only on an ••• umption, not a findin9, that there actually would
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
- 6 -
be "normal" lurplul waterl. beeaul. therl had been no
determination of the luperior ri;htl of other I in the Ranapep.
Valley. In view of it. recognition in Mc8ryde of riparian rights
to the flow of water without subltantial diminution. the court
found that there 1a no "normal" lurplul to whiCh O'R would be
entitled under Territory v. Gay (Pet . App. 186a-187a).
c. McBrydl, G,R. and the small ownera petltioned tor
rehearlng. challeniini the Supreme Court ' s Itate-law ruling. and
cont.nding that the decision violated their right. under the JUlt
Compen.ation and DUI Procel. Clause • • See. ~ •• Pet. App. 353a-
3811. After lupplemental brietini on two Itate-law il,ue. Ind
oral argument, the Supreme Court. with two dilsents (~. at 113a-
162a). reaffirmed its orillin&! judgment (id. at 112a-113a). Thie
Court deni.d review. 417 U.S. 962, 976.
4.a, While re.pondentl' appeal and certiorari petitions
werl pending in this Court. the Robinson r •• pondentl commenced -the prelent action in the United ~tat.s Diltrict Court for the
District of Hawaii (Pet, App. 271a-276&), MC!ryde, the SMall
owners, and others inte~venad as plain tiffs. The complaint
alleged that the dec i sion in McBryde was "directly contrary' to
the settled law of Hawaii a nd violated the Due Process and Juat
compen.ation Clauses of the fifth and Fourteeoth Amendments. the
distr i ct court rendered a cec i sion in favor of respondenes on
October 26. 1977 (id . at 56a-l10a ). concludlr.g after an extensive
analYlrs of the Hawaii Sup reme Court prec,ceMs (~ , at 64&-75. )
that the McBryde decision constituted an abrupt Change in the law
(~. at 1074). The court held that relponde".t s' ownerohip of
surplu. waters and their right to transport wa:er out of the
watershed und=r pre-McSryde ~aw were "v,st,d" property r ight s and
thet enforcement of the decision in Mciryde would r •• ult in an
unconltitutional taKing of tho.e rights. The court accordingly
enjoined petitioners from enforcing the judgment in Mc!ryde (id .
ae 266a-267a).
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
- 7 -
b. On petitionerl' appeal, the court of appeals certified
lix qu •• tioa. to the Supreme Court of Sawaii eoncerning "the
proper interpretation" of the MeBryde alci.ion ('It. App. 414a-
415&). Atter brle!in9 and oral arqument, the supreme Court
i"uld an opinion explaining that the McBryde ho14in9 that the
Itate ownl the lurplus water in the Sanapepe River did not refer
to ·owner.hip 1n the corporeal .ena. where tn. State may do with
the property a. it pleaael" (Pet. App. 51a). lnatead, it
contemplated only the State t• "retention of • * • authority to
•• aure the continued existence and ben,fiel.1 application of the
re.oure. for the common good" (!2!a.) -- ~., • public tru.t .1 reflected in the 1850 State statute declaring the right. of the
people to "runninq watar" (~. at 52a-54&).
The Supreme Court a110 Itr.lsed tbat by reco9nil1n9 riparian
rl;htl and llmitin9 water ri9hts generally to the land to which
they are appurtenant, McBryde "did not actually en~oift or
•• plicitly prohibit the diversion of water from the water.h.d~
(Pet. App. 194). Instead, McBryde merely stated that the
"private ulufruetory intere,ts" in water were "net so broad as to
include any inherent enforceable ri9ht to transmit water" beyend
the appurtenant lands (~). Accordin91y, McBryde was not
"conclu81ve of the citcumstanc •• 11 in which a tranlfer might be
enjoined, especially since such an action would be subject to the
equitable doctrines 0: estoppel, laches, an~ public use (~. At
19a-20a). The court made cleat in this regard that "diversions
will b. r •• trained only after a caref~l assessment of the
intere.ts and circumsta~ceg invo:ved indicates a need for
restraint" (!at at 20a-21a) t
With re5peet to the tes judicata consequences at MCBryde in
any such action to enjoin diversion. by respondents, the Supreme
Court first held that "MCBryde in its current posture has no bar
and merger effect," because no fin.l judCJlftent has yet been
entered in that ca •• (Pet. App. 23a). Similarly, the court held
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
• 8 •
that "i,.ue preclulion would be confined to the quantification of
appurtenant "ater ri9htl [for anci.nt taro land.)," becaule only
that portion of the .tate trial court'. judgment wa' affirmed in
IIcllry4. (~, at 23a·2b). Th. cOllrt acknowlld~ed that Mceryde
al.o had confirmed the .xiltenee of riparian ri9htl, delineated
limitation, on the transportation of water/ and declared the
State to be the owner of lurplll' wat.r (id. at 23a) . lIut the ••
rulinll" the court explained, would only be the "law of the ca.e"
in the "continllation of the ca.e at the trial level" (~ . at
24a). Moreover, the cOllrt It.ted th.t it would b. n.c •••• ry,
'prior to any final jlld9ment re.pectinq the diltribution of the
wateu of the Hanapepe," to <eeolve certain "tactllal and le .. al
iI,ue.," including, "molt .ignificantly[,) the natllte and Icope
of .ny remedie. to be aftorded the partiel " (id, at 24.-254).
The Supreme COllrt likewise held that MCBryde would not preclude
an independent action by respondent. in state court with respect
to i.,ue. left unresolved by the MCBryde opinion, including the
application of the principles of McBryde to "exiatin9 diversions"
(~. at 42a). The cOllrt strea.ed that McBr vde di~ not determine
whether the cessation of any given diversion would constitute a
"takin;" (~.) .
Finally, the Supreme Court ~dvis~d the court of appeals that
state law prior to McBryde was unsettled and confusin9 (Pet. App.
42.·50.). In its view, only three cases addressed "Iurplus"
wat.rs in the 125 years between :he Great Ma hele and McBrvde : in
each, surplus water was : reated diffe:ent l y, and "in none of them
did the court even attempt to cle~rly def~ne or quantify the
nature of this riQht" ( ~, It 47a-481 ) . The court ~lso exp:~ined
that thee. prior ca.es recognized that "surpl us" water wa ••
,e.idull category/ to which the und.fined interests of other
u.er. were ,uperlor (~. ~t 49a).
In • 11m , the Supreme Court interpreted its Mc8ryde decision
•• a rea.eertion of the soverei9n authority to "enforee the
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
- 9 -
UlufrUc:t. of the h.nd for the common 900d" (Pet. App. 54a) a"d a
rejection of re.pondenta' .. aertion of "abaolut. and exclulive"
control over the uae of waters 1n the waterahed (id. It 551).
The McBryde opinion. howaver. wa. only the beqinnin9 of "a
naeu.ilry definition of the paramateu of the State'. luthority."
which would proceed on a case-by-ca.e bali. (~. at 55a) .
c. After the Supreme Court of Hawaii answered the certified
que.tiona. the court of appeal, nev.rtheless held that the
dleiaion in McBryde resulted in an unconatitutional taking of
rlapondlnte' property (Pet. App. la-13a). The court of appeals
found that :eapond.nte had "vest.d" property ri9htl to divert
water becauae they had relied on the decree in Territory v Cay
and conatructed diveraion works (id. at lla. 121). and it hlld
that McBrYc:\e could not "divest righta that were vested before the
court announced the new law" (id. at 12a). Although the court of
app.als referred to the answers to the cert i fiec:\ questions (!£. at 5a). it did not addreas the substance of thOle answers.
including the avai l ability of means by which respondents could
conteat any attempt by the State to ha l t diversions. However.
becaule petitioners had taken no steps to i nterfere with
re.pondents' diversions. the court of appea l . vacated the
injunction that barred petitioners from seeki ng to enterce the
decision in McBryde and affirmed on l y the district court'.
declaratory j udgment (!£. at 13a) .
ARCUMENT
Th.re are lur ki ng in this cale a number of ditficult and
po tentially importan~ ; uee·ions concer ni ng ( i ) the r'I~.cti v ~
ro l es of the state and f. de~al courts i n t h~ ascerta i nment and
.nforcement of property rights created by state law, and (i i ) t he
authority of a federal di strict court to entertain a s uit ra i sing
iasu •• of federa l law that are intertwined with questions that
pr.viously wert diaposed of by the hi9heat court ot the State.
The aup.rimposition of the,e procedural que.tions on evolving and
. '
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
- 10 -
novel prin~iple. ot Hawaiian water law make. this ca.e one ot
r extraordinary complaxity J Sut al w • •• e it. th.r. i. no oeca.ion
tor the Court to .xplor. tho.e i •• ue. h.re. In it. current •
po.tur~. this ea.e raise. on. legal illue that oVlrshadowl all
Il.e and lugg •• ts a .imple and .traighttorward di.po.ition.
Th. opinion of the Supr~me Court of Hawaii in r •• pon •• to
the qu.,tion. certified to it by th~ court of appeal. mak., clear
that the McBryde deci.ion did not tinally determine r •• pondent.'
entitlem.nt under Itate law to divert water from the Hanapepe
River and it. tributarie.. Th. deci.ion in McBryde therefore was
not the lott of "final" action by the State that could 9ive dee
to a ripe takinq claim under this Court'; decision in William.on
County algional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank. No. 84-4 (June
27. 1~85). Becaul. the judgment of the court of appeal • . -con.titute. a substantial intruaion into the state court
proceeding. in McBryde and may- inhi bi t the d~P"'8A~ of at ate
water law more generally. we sU9gest that the Court should qrant
the petition for a writ of certiorari. vacate the judgm.nt, and
rem.nd the ca.e to the court of appeals tor further con.ideration
in light of William.on County.
1. In Willamaon county, the Court held that a claim that a
taking of property hIe been effec:ed by zoning regulations is not
ripe until the responsible administrative agency "has arrived at
a final, definitive position regarding how it will apply the
rlqulations at issue to the pArticular :and in que&tion." Slip
op. 17. The Court found this Einality requirement to be
"compelled by the very nature of the inquiry required by the Just
Compensation Clause" (ibid.), under which the Court h •• engaged
in "ad hoc, factual inquir'" into the circumstanee. of eaeh
particular ca.e." Connolly v. Pension 8ene~lt Guaranty Corp.,
No. 84-1555 (P'tb. 26. 1986), slip op. 13. To &asht in this
as •••• m.nt. the Court typically considers. inter ali •• the
-.conomic impact of the challenged action" and "th ... xe .. nt to
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
- 11 -
which it int.rfere. with rea.onabl. inveltment-blcked
expectation •• " Williamson County, slip op. 17: Connolly, .lip
op. 13-15. "Thole factorl .imply cannot be ev~luat.d" until the
adainiltrative aQency "has arrived at a d.finitiv. POlition on
the i •• u. that inflict. an actual concrete injury" (.lip op. 17,
l~). The Court further held in William.on County that in order
for the finality requirement to be satisfied, the landown.r mu.t
invoke available procedure. for obtainin9 a varianc., which mi9ht
.nable him to d.velop his property to the extent n.ce.lary to
obviate any "takinQ" claim. Slip op. 14-17. Accord, ~ v,
Virginia Surtace Mining, R.clamation Ass'n, 452 0.5. 254, 297
(1981)1 Awin. v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255. 260 (1980): ',nn C.ntral
Tran'portation Corp. v. N.w York City, 438 u.s. 104, 136-137
(1918).
Thi. ca.e involves an alleged taking not ~. a result of the
action of a state administrative agency, as in Williamlon County,
but al the r.sult of a deci.ion rendered by a state court that
a •• ert.dly worked a radical chanQe in state property law and
up.et settled expectations. But this distinction doe. not
undermine the applic~bility of the finaliey requirement of
William.on County and related cases. For where the State has
al.iined to its courts the responsibility for defining and
re9ulatinQ property rights. __ I it i5 only after the court. have
taken dltinitive action with respect to particular rights that
the Iconomic impact of the judicially fashioned rule. and the
ext.nt of their inte~ference with reasonabie investment-bac,ed
expectations cou l d De considered by this court on dirlct view or
by a tedlral distric< cc"rt considering a taking claim !n _
I.parate luit (if the :at:er would not be barrld Dy ohe doc:~'n.
~I Thl .tate trial judge in McBryde Ixerciled authority vested 1n him al commis.ioner of private ways and Water rights undlr 55 234-30 to 234-36 of the Rlvised L.ws of Hawaii (1955). Sle P.t. App. 197 •.
. . University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
- 12 -
of Rooker v. ridelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), discus.ed
at note ,~).
Application of the finality rule in thi. ca.e allO furthera
the principlel of comity that underlie the requirement that
federal courts ab.tain from adjudicatin9 feder~l qUlstions th~t
ariel out of and could be prelented in on90in9 proceedinql in
Itate court. See, ~., Hawaii Houling Authority v. Midkiff, 467
O.S. 229, 237-239 (1984); Middlesex Ethic. Committee v. Garden
Stat. Bar AII'n, 457 O.S. 423, 432-437 (1982); Giblon v.
Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577 (1973). The interut in comity is
at itl zenith where, a. here, the premile of the taking claim is
that a Itate court'. interpretation or application of judicially
falhioned principles of state law affecting property intereltl
wal alllgedly Irroneoua and a sharp departure from prior law. In
luch a cale, the state courts should have every opportunity,
before rendering a final judgment, to correct or explain their
rulingl on questions of state law, to consider any claim that
thOle .tat.-l~w rulings would give rise to a taking of property
in certai n circumstances (lee Pet. App. 42a), and otherwi.e to
accommodate competing interests. Premature intervention in
thil procel' by the federal courts on a taking theory could have
t~h~e~u~n~t~o:w:.~r:d~e~f~f~.~c~t~o~f~f~r~e~e~Z~i~n~~t~h~e~o~v~o~l ~u~i~onn-2o~f~~~~aw, ct. l'rune'iard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 82-85 (1980);
id. at 92-93 (Mushall, J" concurrinQ); ~ v. Illinois, 94
U.S. 113 (1877).
2. When ~he instant suit wa. commenced in rederal dist:ic:
court in 1974, it might have appeared :hat :he tinality
requirement of Williamson County was satisfied. The decision of
the Supreme Court of Hawaii in ~cBrvde had d.c~.rld the State :0
be the owner of all I"rplus water in the Han.pepe wlt."hed and
.eemed to bar the holders of appurtenant or riparian water rights
from u1in9 water on otho: lands. Moreover, althOUgh G.R had been
held in Territory v. Gay to be the owner of all "norItl41" .urplus
. ' University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
I I . .
- 13 -
water. thl rlcoinition of riparian riihts In MCBrydl apparently
11ft no watlr in that relidual cateiory. Nor could prelcrlptive
riqhtl bl rlcognl'ld for the blnefit of re.pondent MCBry~e
blcaull pr.lcription does not run Ig.inlt thl State. SI •
• lupra. Standini alone. thlse ru11ng' miiht have
blln undlr.tood to be a conclusive determination under .tatl law
of the naturl and extent of respondent" riqht' to divert water
from thl lanaplpl and its tributaril. for ule both within and
without the watlrlhed. In that event. the finality r.quirlment
of "111ia •• on County and relatad ca.el would have beln
,aeiltild.
3.1. The Inawers to the clrtified questions renderld by the
Hawaii Supreme Court in 1982. however. dilpellld whatevlr air of
finality had surrounded the dlci.10n in Mciryde. Thol. answerl,
in the form of a published opinion rendlred after briefing and
orll argument by the parties, must be reilrded a. the dilpolitive
Ixpolition of the meaning and con.equances of the McBryde
dlCilion II a matter of Itlte law. Indeed, the court of appea11'
Ixpre.1 purpose in making thl certification was to obtain an
authoritative construction of the McBryde opinion (see Pet, App.
414a). "which might avoid in whole or in part the nece •• ity for
fed.ral conlt1tutiona1 ad j udication or at least materially change
thl nature of the prob l em." Bellotti v. ~, 428 U.S, 132. 147
(1976), quoting Harriso~ v. NAACP, 360 U,S, 167, 177 (1959). ¥H
when it received the an.werl to the questions, the court of
applal. failed to appreciate their signiticanc. to the "taking"
inquiry, l and inltead essent,ally igno:ed them ) For example, the
court of appeals failed even to mention, much lQSS rebut, tho
Eawaii Supreme Court ' S explanat i on, qiv.n in dir.ct r.lpcnle to
on. of the court of appea •• ' questions, thlt the law of Rawaii
with r.gard to the ownership of lurplus water WI. uncllar prior
to MCiryde (Pet. App . 44a-51a). __ 1 But the court of appeals
nev.rthellS8 hlld that respondent. had "vested" right. bas.d on
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
- l4 -
stat. law prior to McBryde (l2 ' at 10a-12a). __ 1
__ I Th. courts b.low appear to have applied an ellentially de novo Itandard of revi.w to th. state court'. determination of the cont.nt of .tat. property law (.ee Pet. App. 98a-103a). We b.li.ve tnat approaoh fails to accord .ufficient d.ferenc. to the .tate court. Th. court of app.als reli.d on the concurrinq opinion of JUltic. Stewart in Hughes v. Washington, 389 U.S. 290. 296-297 (1967). which .tated that "wheth.r (. stat. court) deoi.ion • • • worked an unpredictable change in state law •• • inevitably pr •• ente a federal question for the determination of thi. Court." But that .tatement did not mean that f.deral courts may fr •• ly impo.e their own viewl on the oontent of .tate property law. Indeed. JUltice St.wart would have re.tricted the .cope of the fed.ral court'. inquiry to whither the Itate court'. pronouncements w.re "r.a.onable." Id. at 296. The inquiry has been de.cribed in a r.lat.d cont.xt-'. wheth.r the .tate d.oision ha. "fair support" or a "fair and lub.tantial basia." D.moreAt v. City lank Co., 321 O. S. 36, 42-43 (1944). If so, th. hderal court will not "substitute it. own vi.w of what .hould b. deemed the b.tter rule. for that of the .tate court." Id. at 42.
1 Th. court of app.al. identified the actioni that rendered tEe water rights "vested" as the dllcree in Territory v. Gay (Pet. App. 12&) and the con.truction of diversion work. and pa.t uae of water (id. at l1a). The court apparently believed that any disturbance of those "vested" rights would of necessity .ffect an unconstitutional taking. In our view. this formulation of the circumstance. in which a takinq of respondents' a.lerted rights in water would occur is too simplistic. at l ea.t without a much firmer foundation in the law of Hawaii than is exhibited by the court'. opinion. Cf. Wil liamson County •• l i p op . 18-19 n.12.
We do not di.pute that the judgment of a court may ve.t a property right under governing law -- as. for example, in the gen.ral adjudioations that are conducted in many western States to a.ttle al" of the rights to the u.e of the waters of a particular stream. See Nevada v. united States. 463 U.S. 110,
(
130-134. 138-141 (198 3) . However. teu !tory v. Gat was not a
(
general adjudication of all rights to the waters 0 the Hanapepe River. and it did even not quant i fy the re'geetive rights of tne Territory and G'R. the oniy 9art i e. to the case. Although the judgment in Territory v. Gay nevertheless has a certain res judicata effect a. between those parties (see ?at. App. 29a-)'a). it i. not clear, as a matter of state law, tha: :he judgmer.t actually "vested" any prope:ty r~9ht5 in G,R. ~~ch :es. in t~e other respondent. to tr.!. case. Simila: ly . a:thougn tne buclc! ~ g of diversion works a~d the benef~cial app: ic a::o~ of ~a:e: ~a y oe important events in t. he "vesti:1.9" of water !"i;hts in thOl e St.a:es that r.cogniz~ :h@ doc:ri~e of p:~or appr ~pr i. t ~on (S@e Nevada v . United State •• 463 U.S. a: :23-:26), those events a~e not necessarlly o@~er~ inat ~v e o! : ~ e pArticu~ar ~ate: :~ght5 clai~ed in this case, which ~re based in large meal~re on ~he mere ownerShip o! cer:ai n l a~d ( a~c i ent taro lands and ilis ~u?onO ) .
w. agre. thAtl i~ the &cse~ce of a ncxioua use or simi~.r adverse impact on others. past and present use. of property ordinarily must be :e.pected if :he impl.mentation of a new
[
r.9u1atOr y program is to avo i d qivinq rise to a taking of I ) property within the meaning of the Just Compen.ation Clau •• . See I • P.nn C.ntral. 438 U.S. at l36, id. at 144-145 (Rehnquist. J.,
du.entlng). Nevertheleu. theC!ourt hai held that. in certu~ c1rcum.tanc •••• ven an existing us. ma~ be proscribed without .tt .ctlng a eakln9. See id. at 1 2 ~-l2. At the .ame t i me. a (C'6nt l nu.d ) --
))
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
"
- 15 -
b. For pr •• ent purpoae •• however, the importance of the
Rawaii Supreme Court'. anawera to the certified queation. i. in
th.ir d •• cription of the i •• uea of .tate law affecting
r"pondent.' rights that r.main to be r •• oivld !!!!! the Supreme
Court'. d.ciaion in McBryde -- and that apparently remain open in
further proce.dinqi in McBryde it.elf. First, contrary to what
appear. to have b.en the parties' prior understandinq (a •• , ~.,
Pet. App. 39a n.22). the anlwera to the certified queationl now
Bake clear that the decision in McBryde did not constitute the
final di.po.ition of that ease (id, at 23a-24a). The only
determination with rea judicata .ffect wa. the quantification of
the appurtenant water riqhts for ancient taro landI, which wa.
affirmed in McBryde and is not at issue here . The Supreme
Court'l rever.al of the remainder of the trial court'a judgment
limply rendered that portion of the judgment void. thereby
permitting a "continuation of the ease at the trial level" with
regard to all .apects of the cas. except the quantification of
appurtenant water rights for ancient taro lands (~. at 24a).
The Supreme Court recognized that it a l lo had addresaed
other i •• ues in i ts opini on in MCBrvde : i t "confirmed the
exi.tenee of riparian rights. delineated l i mitationa on the right
to transport appurtenant ~aters, and found that the State was the
owner of surplus waters" (PIt. App, 23a ) . But because H did not
give instructions to the trial court on these question. or
exercise its own authori t y to render a flna l judqment, the
court's ruling. on these que.tion~ have only the status of ~he
I'law of the case " in t he f urther pr oceRd ings that must tA ke p:aee
in the trial court before a fina l j udgme nt i s en:ered I ~, at
prohibition aqainst the f"ture exercise of • previously uni nvoked incident of ownership may , i n the proper ea.e. e~t.ct _ tak i ng, See United States v . Ri vers i de Sayview Homes. :nc .• No, 84- 701
[
(Dec. 14, 1985), sl i p op , at 4. However. to the oxant t he deci.ion of the court of appea l . i. baled on concepts of ~v •• tin91' chat Ire not rooted i n State l aw, i t , •• ulta in a deClaration regarding the circumstances in which a taking wi ll be found that i. potentially both under- and over-inclu.ivl.
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
f ... ,-'
- 15 -
24a). The Supreme Court explained that tho •• ru1in9' would
".erv. a. e roundation" for tho •• lurther proceeding. but "would
not n.c .... rily b. completely d1lpelitive" of th.m, beca"se the
doctrin. ot the law of the ca.e ia "'not subject to the
inflexibility ot rea judicata'" (ieL at 241 , n.9, quoting
Glover v. rong, 42 !law. 560, 578 (1958)). Thu" although the
Supreme Court has expressed its opinion at an int.rlocutory atag.
of the proce.dingl on q"'8tions of law that might ev.ntually ~
affect re.pendents' property right', it rated
thoae ruling' into a tinal judgment that ha. a binding effect on ~
(
reapondent.. And until it doe. 10, the Supreme Court pr •• umablY)
; etain. the authority to alter ita rulings. Compare Arizona v.
California, 460 U.S. 605, 618-619 (1983).
Thil cas. therefore is in the same posture in which the
adminiltrative prlceedings in Williamson County would have been
it the Planning Commie.lon had expressed its opinion on clrt,in
legal i.lues but had not yet denied the developor'. subdivision
application. In that event, the dave10per c~early would not have
obtain.d the requiSite "final dec i sion " regarding it and how it
would be permitted to develop the l and, and it therefore would
nOt have a ripe takinQ c l aim. Williamson County, Ilip op. 17.
So here, until judicial proceedings are "complete" (g. at 22),
the r.sponsible state entity has not rendered its "final
deci.ion" that bind. respondents and has concrete legal
consequenc •• for them. At least until that time, respondent. may
continue to di vert water. In short , the mere rende'inQ of a
l !Jal opin ion at a n interlocutory stage ot proceedings in state
court concerning :!sponde~ts ' rights dO@i not con5t itu~ e • . "takin9" of tl"e:r property . Kir!:>y :ore9t ~ndustrie5, Inc. v.
United States, 467 U.S. 1, 15 (1983), Aginl, 447 U.S. at 263 n. 9,
Oanforth v. United Statu, 30e U.S. 271, 285 (1939).
Nor i. this an inltance in which further proceedingl in
stat. court would have no .ffect en respondents' taking claim.
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
- 17 -
Cf. Cos iro.dc •• tin9 Corp. v. ~. 420 U.S. 469. 417-481
(lP75). To the contrary. the aawaii Supr.m. Court ', an.w.ts to
the c.rtifi.d qu •• tiona establish that the deciaion in McBryde
did ~ .r.dic.te all bas •• for protection of reapond.ntl'
div'rlionl and that a number of i •• ues bearing on that protection
r.~in to be decid.d in state court.
ror ,xample , althouqh the MCiryde decision declares the
State to b. the owner of all lurplul water in the Hanapepe
wat.rlh.d (P.t. App. 162a-174a). the anlwerl to the certifi.d
queltionl make cl.ar that McBryd. did not hay. r.ference to
ownerlhip in the corporeal len ••• under which the St.t. could
dilpo., of the water entirely .1 it plealel. but rather
contemplat.d the retention by the Stite of authority "to .ssure
the continued exiltence and beneficial app l i cation of the
r'lource for the common good" (id. at 51a) . As thil Court ha.
recognized. the public ownerlhip theory i' "but a fiction
expr'llive in legal shortha nd of the i mportance to its people
that a State have power to preserve and regula te the exploitat i on
of an important re.ource." Spor ha .. v. NebraSKa, 458 U.S. 94l,
951 (1982), quot ing Hughes v. Okhhoma, 441 U.S. 322, 334 (1979),
and Toomer v. Witse ll , 334 U. S. 385. 402 (1948). See also
Sporh •••• 458 U.S. a t 951-954. But this Court h~1 "made it qu!te
clear that the mer. assert ion of reQulatory juri sdiction by a
qovernm.nta l body do •• not constit ut e a requl~to ry t~king.·
United States v. Riverside Bayvie'" nones. rnc., lIo. 84-701
(Dec. 14. 19!5), slip op. at 4-5.
Beyond th i s. McBryde and the answe rs to the certified
qu •• tions eltabl i sh only tha: the Robi nlon ,espondents do not awn
tn. lurp1us ~at.r in the sense of h~v'n9 :he un fe tt ered rig~t :0
u •• it in Any manner they choole, and none of th~ t •• ponder.~5 has
"ablolute and exclusiv.!' interest! in the wat@r, including an
"inh.r.nt enforceablQ right" to transmit water b.yond the land to
which their usufructory inter.stl appertain (Pet. App. 19a,
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
.. 18 -
55a). But thl Supreme Court or Hawaii authoritatively held in
the anlwer. to the certified que.tiona that the application of
the ,eneral principles in the McBryde opinion to any particular
diYeraiona and the circum.tane •• under which any exiltln9
diyeraion. may continue were not addressed or decided in McBryde,
Iyen a. the law of the c •• e. !!. at 19.-21., 23.-25., 42a. The
Supr ••• Court made clear, 1n ~.ct, that diverliona would be
-barred only aftlr a careful ••• elsment ot the intere.ta involved
indicate. a nled for rlstraint" (1d. at 211) and that any action -to reatrain diyerlions would require consideration of the
equitable doctrinea o~ lache., •• toppal, and pub11c u •• (id. at
l'a-20.). The.e qu •• tiona appar'ently remain open in further
proc •• d1nvs in McBryde itl.ll, lince the anlwers te the certified
que.tiona Itate that Amon; the tI~nr'801ved tactual and legal
i •• u.I" in that cale are "the nature and scope oe any remediel to
be afforded the parties" (£g. at 25a). They allo NY be
ad4re.led in an independent action brou9ht in state court by
either petitioner or respondent <!i. at 19a-21a, 42a).
The.e procedures in state court by which rel2on4ents may be
permittld to divert water afford the possibility for the ~.ry
protection that the court of appeals held to be constitutionally
compelled for what it termed respondents' Uvested ri9ht" (~. at
10a-12a). ReBor~ to these procedure" either 1n MCBryde itself
or in any independent action, therefore 1s directly analogous to
the .pp~ieatlon for a variance or .imilar adm1~i.tr.tlv. relief
that this Court held in Williamson County (Slip OPe 13-18) an~
Vir9inia Surf.c. Mining (452 C.S. at 297) might •• rve to permit
u ••• of property to the extent neces;ary to obviate any tak:ng
problem. Thus, ~ntj,l' the state C01.lrts have .'Iarr J,veeS at a ! inal,
definitive position" (Williamson County, slip Opt 17) re9ardin;
existin9 diversions, it cannot be determined whether r •• pondent's
intereat. will be .0 substantially impa1red by an actual
prohibition as to precl\,lc!e "lconomieally viable y ..... of their
./
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
- 19 -
all'qed riqhtl ~nder pre-Hc!ryde law (Riverlide layview Hom.s,
Ilip op. 5) or to ~ndermine substantially thair "inve.tment
bicked aspect.tion." (Kal.er Aetna, 444 U.S. at 175). Se •• lso
'enn Central, 438 U.S. at 130-131, Andru. v. All.rd, 444 U.S. 51,
66.
In lum, we believe it ia quite claar on the b'lis of the
anlverl to tha certifiad que,tion. that no final action that
co~ld amo~nt to a "takin;" of reapondanu' property ha. yet
occ~rred in tha McBryde case. Accordin;ly, thia federal .~it I ,
Iho~ld be di.mia.ed, 10 that any nlc811ary .tate court -procaedinqa may r~n their cour •• and thereby perh.ps obviate any
takinq cl.im, or at lea8t sharpen the inquiry into the various
factorl that are rel.v.nt to luch a claim. We rec09nil',
howaver, that the decillon of the court of appeal. in this case
was rendered before Williamson County, Which gr.atly clarified
the role of final i ty aa a prerequisite to a taking claim. The
Court therefore mi;ht wi,h to vacate the judgment below and -re~nd thi ca,e to the court of appeall for further consideration
~ li;ht of Williamson County. !n any event, the Court should
grant the petition in order to eliminate the substantial
intruaion by the courtS below into the litigation in Itate
with "9ard to wator ri;hts in tho Hanapepe watorohed and,
court)1
mort!
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
,
- 20 -
generally, into the cas~-by-ca8e development 0' .tate water law
by the Supreme Court ot Rawaii. __ I
If, al we lubmit, ro rlate dis osition il 'or this dis ck of final action ate t at
cOu r1 e 0 issue. preaented by petitionera are ot no moment here. Petitionerl contend (Pet. 20-22; Pet. Reply 8r. 6-8) that the Rawaii Supreme Court'l deci.ion in Mc8ryde precludes relpondent. trom bringing their taking claim in leder.l di.trict court, becauae "'a United Statel Diltrict Court hal no authority to review final judgmlnta ot a Itatl court in judicial procledings. Review of luch judgmentl mar be had only in thil Court'" (Pet. 20, quoting Oiltrict of Co umbia Court ot Antala y. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) j. See Rooker v. tIdilY fruat Co., 263 U.9. 413 (1923). Rowlver, it now Is cllar 1n light ot the anlwera to the certified questionl thst the dlcilion in McBryde was not" "final judgment or decne" of the Supreme Court of Hawaii that was aubject to review by this Court unalr 28 U.S.C. 1257, because important questiona rlmained to be decided in that case that would have a direct blaring on rlspondents' taking claim. The d~fect in the judgment below
~~theretore i5 that it intrudes into non-final itate court procl,dings -- a subject addressed not by Feldm~n and Rooker, but by the abatention doctrine as a general m~tter (see Ptt. Reply 8r. 9-10) and by the finality requirement of Williamson County in the particular context ot a taking claim.
Petitionerl' rllhud contention (Pet. 24-26) that the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. 1738, bars relitigation of rttpondenta' t~king claim in ~his case is misp:aced for similar realon •• AI petitioners acknowledge, that statute "requires a ttderal court to look first to State prec~usion law in dttermining the preclusive effects of a state court judgment" (Ptt. 24, quoting Marrese v. Amerlcan Acade~y of Orthopedic Surieonl, NO. 83-1452 (M~r. 4, 1985) slip op. 7). S~e also Parsons Steel, Inc. y. First Ahbama Bank, No. 84-1616 (J~n. 27, 1986). In thlS case, tht Hawaii Suprtme Court held in itS anlwers to the certified question, that because no final judgment hal bIen entered in McBryde on ~ny issue other than the quantification of appurtenant water rights (which is not at issue htr.), the decilion in McBryde has no bar and merger or issuepreclusion effect that :s relevant to this case. At present, ~he McBryde rulings r.girdin9 riparian rights, the transportability of water, and State ownersnio of surpl~s water, are ~erelv t ns law of t~e C", (Pet. API? 23a-24a). Thus, unti ~ a fl nal jud9ment is ent~red in McSrvde on other i.s~e9 that relate directly to respondents' :aK~~g cl~i~. neither th .. doctrJ.ne of res judicata nor the ~u:l ~a~:h and credit s~at~:" is the source of the bar to litigation en ~.d"ral court. 3y :he same ~oK~n, when a final :udgment is e~:er.d ~n McBrvde, respondents ~ill be free to prlsent to thiS-Court on direct review under 28 U.S.C. 1257 any conttitutional obj~ctioni ~o the .ffect that the actions ot thl .tatl court. might have on their property rights -includin9 their claim that thl decision in MCBryde, either on its face or al applied in future proceedings, reau1ts in an unconltitutional taking of their property without just compen •• tion (aee Pet. App. 42a).
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
CCITT 03 + 8085483235 ; #24
- 21 -
CONCLUSIOM
The petition for • writ ot certiorari ahould be 9ranted, the
jud,..nt of the court of appeal. vacat.d, and the ca •• remanded
to the court of app.al. for further consideration in light of
Willlamsen County .egional Planning Commi •• ion v. Hamilton lank
of John.on City, He. 84-4 (June 27, 1'86).
MAY l'IS
".pectfully lubmitt.d.
CBARLES PItIED Solicitor General
r. RENRY HAllCRT II Alli.tant Attorney aeneral
LAWRENCE G. WALLACI Deputy Solicitor Oeneral
EDWIN S. KNEEDL!R AI.istant to the Solicitor deneral
PETER R. STEENLAND, JR. ANNE S. At-MY
Attorney.
P24
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection