Background
Sean and Theresa Kading appealed a decision of the Maui County Board of Variances and Appeals, challenging a ruling involving the Department of Planning for the County of Maui. The matter worked its way through the lower courts, with the Kadings ultimately receiving an adverse ruling from the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in CAAP-23-0000349.
The Kadings filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi on May 19, 2026, seeking further review of the ICA’s decision. The application asked the Supreme Court to take up the case and reconsider the outcome reached by the appellate court below.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi, with Chief Justice Devens and Justices McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, along with Circuit Judge Char sitting by assignment, unanimously rejected the Kadings’ Application for Writ of Certiorari on July 6, 2026.
By rejecting the application, the court declined to exercise discretionary review. The ICA’s ruling therefore stands as the final appellate disposition of the case, without further elaboration from the Supreme Court on the underlying merits.
Key Takeaways
- The Hawaii Supreme Court rejected certiorari, meaning the ICA’s decision against the Kadings is the final word on appeal.
- The one-page order provides no analysis of the merits — rejection of certiorari is a procedural disposition, not an endorsement or criticism of the reasoning below.
- Circuit Judge Stephanie R.S. Char sat by assignment due to a vacancy on the court.
Why It Matters
For practitioners, this order is a reminder that Hawaii’s certiorari process is discretionary: the Supreme Court may decline review without comment, leaving ICA decisions as controlling authority in the relevant jurisdiction. Litigants challenging local land-use and variance determinations in Maui County should note that administrative board decisions can be insulated from further appellate scrutiny once the ICA has ruled.
The substitution of Director Jacky Takakura for former Director Michele McLean under HRAP Rule 43(c)(1) also illustrates the automatic party-substitution mechanism applicable when a named government official leaves office during the pendency of an appeal.