5 were not met and harassment as therein defined was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Schermer, citing State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 341-42, 984 P.2d 78, 100-01 (1999), also argued that while the district court could take judicial notice of the existence of documents filed in the previous cases, it could not take judicial notice of the truth of the facts in those documents. He conceded, however, that he would be collaterally estopped from relitigating the facts or issues in Case 639.
Chun, 106 Hawai‘i at 430, 106 P.3d at 353 (citing Hutch, 75 Haw. at 328, 861 P.2d at 22. "An FOF is also clearly erroneous when the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding.") Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 91 Hawai‘i 394, 399, 984 P.2d 1220, 1225 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 329, 984 P.2d 78, 88 (1999) ). "Substantial evidence" is "credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion." Leslie, 91 Hawai‘i at 399, 984 P.2d at 1225 (quoting Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i at 328, 984 P.2d at 87 ).
Chun, 106 Hawai‘i at 430, 106 P.3d at 353 (citing Hutch, 75 Haw. at 328, 861 P.2d at 22. "An FOF is also clearly erroneous when the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding.") Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 91 Hawai‘i 394, 399, 984 P.2d 1220, 1225 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 329, 984 P.2d 78, 88 (1999) ). "Substantial evidence" is "credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion." Leslie, 91 Hawai‘i at 399, 984 P.2d at 1225 (quoting Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i at 328, 984 P.2d at 87 ).
The ICA and this court have stated many times that appellate "power to deal with plain error is one to be exercised sparingly." See State v. Mars, 116 Hawai'i 125, 132, 170 P.3d 861, 868 (2007); Fields, 115 Hawai'i at 529, 168 P.3d at 981; State v. Frisbee, 114 Hawai'i 76, 85, 156 P.3d 1182, 1191 (2007) (Nakayama, J., dissenting); State v. Rodrigues, 113 Hawai'i 41, 47, 147 P.3d 825, 831 (2006); Nichols, 111 Hawai'i at 335, 141 P.3d at 982; Honda, 108 Hawai'i at 239, 118 P.3d at 1182 (Levinson, J., dissenting) ("We have noted that `the appellate court's discretion to address plain error is always to be exercised sparingly[.]'" (quoting Okada Trucking Co., 97 Hawai'i at 458, 40 P.3d at 81); State v. Aplaca, 96 Hawai'i 17, 22, 25 P.3d 792, 797 (2001); State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 343, 984 P.2d 78, 102 (1999); State v. Lee, 83 Hawai'i 267, 274, 925 P.2d 1091, 1098 (1996); State v. Nguyen, 81 Hawai'i 279, 293, 916 P.2d 689, 703 (1996); State v. Kaiama, 81 Hawai'i 15, 25, 911 P.2d 735, 745 (1996); State v. Baron, 80 Hawai'i 107, 117, 905 P.2d 613, 623 (1995); State v. Puaoi, 78 Hawai'i 185, 191, 891 P.2d 272, 278 (1995); State v. Kelekolio, 74 Haw. 479, 515, 849 P.2d 58, 75 (1993); State v. Fox, 70 Haw. 46, 56, 760 P.2d 670, 676 (1988); State v. Kiaaina, No. 29034, 119 Hawai'i 321, 196 P.3d 323, 2008 WL 4900553 (App. Nov. 14, 2008) (SDO); State v. Mitchell, No. 28079, 195 P.3d 711, 2008 WL 4649426 (App. Oct. 17, 2008) (mem.); State v. Kaahui, No. 28487, 118 Hawai'i 418, 191 P.3d 1095, 2008 WL 4057645 (App. Aug. 29, 2008) (mem.
However, inasmuch as the plaintiffs failed to move for a Rule 56(0 continuance, the circuit court was not presented with an opportunity to pass on the issue. Cf. State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 340, 984 P.2d 78, 99 (1999) (holding that the defendant "had the opportunity to raise the issue [(now challenged on appeal)] . . . in the circuit court, but he did not do so. Inasmuch as he is the party alleging error, it was his burden to raise the issue, and any ambiguity in the circuit court's d i n g may therefore be attributed to him").
"We have defined `substantial evidence' as credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion." Id. (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Haw. 319, 328, 984 P.2d 78, 87 (1999)). In re Water Use Permit Applications (Waiahole), 94 Haw. 97, 118-19, 9 P.3d 409, 430-31 (2000) (some brackets added and some in original).
"'Substantial evidence' . . . is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion." Doe, 84 Hawai'i at 46, 928 P.2d at 888 (quoting State v. Wallace, 80 Haw. 382, 391-92, 910 P.2d 695, 704-05 (1996)); see also State v. Kotis, 91 Haw. 319, 328, 984 P.2d 78, 87 (1999). In re Jane Doe, Born on June 16, 1994, 101 Haw. 220, 227, 65 P.3d 167, 174 (2003).
Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law to be reviewed de novo under the right/wrong standard. Flor v. Holguin, 94 Haw. 70, 77, 9 P.3d 382, 389 (2000) (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Haw. 319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999)) (some citations omitted). Our statutory construction is guided by the following well established principles:
Judicial notice of the prior proceedings extends to "the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, judgments[, ] and findings of fact and conclusions of law because of the principles of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and the law of the case." State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319, 342, 984 P.2d 78, 101 (1999) (citation omitted).
[The Hawai‘i Supreme Court has] defined ‘substantial evidence’ as credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 328, 984 P.2d 78, 87 (1999)) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “A trial court's conclusions of law [ (COL) ] are reviewed de novo, under the right/wrong standard of review.”