From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carlisle v. 1984 Chevrolet Corvette

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Jan 18, 2002
24821 (Haw. Jan. 18, 2002)

Opinion

24821

January 18, 2002.

A.G. NO. 01-1540, [HPD Report No. 01-152533]

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAM, RAMIL, and ACOBA, JJ.


ORDER


Upon consideration of the notice of appeal filed by Nathan D. Park, it appears that: (1) Park is appealing from the Attorney General's order granting a petition for administrative forfeiture and denying a petition for remission or mitigation filed by Scott Spear; (2) Park did not serve the notice of appeal as required by HRAP Rule 3, pay the filing fee, or move for waiver of the filing fee; (3) HRS § 712A-10 governs administrative forfeitures; (4) HRS § 712A-10(11) provides that there shall be no appeal from the attorney general's decision or order of forfeiture or remission or mitigation; (5) It is well-settled that the right to appeal is purely statutory and exists only when given by some constitutional or statutory provision. Burke v. County of Maui, 95 Haw. 288, 289, 22 P.3d 84, 85 (2001); Oppenheimer v. AIG Hawai`i Ins. Co., 77 Haw. 88, 91, 881 P.2d 1234, 1237 (1994); Chambers v. Leavey, 60 Haw. 52, 57, 587 P.2d 807, 810 (1978); and (6) Inasmuch as HRS § 712A-10(11) provides that there shall be no appeal from the attorney general's decision or order of forfeiture, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the notice of appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Carlisle v. 1984 Chevrolet Corvette

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Jan 18, 2002
24821 (Haw. Jan. 18, 2002)
Case details for

Carlisle v. 1984 Chevrolet Corvette

Case Details

Full title:PETER B. CARLISLE, In his official capacity as the Prosecuting Attorney of…

Court:Supreme Court of Hawaii

Date published: Jan 18, 2002

Citations

24821 (Haw. Jan. 18, 2002)