Brown v. Thompson (Haw. 1999)
Decided: 1999-07-07. Opinion
Source note (2026-10-18):
- Links on this page to
https://static.case.law/f-supp-2d/333/cases/0942-01.json,https://static.case.law/haw/91/cases/0001-01.jsonare an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.
Facts
The owner challenged government impoundment/disposition and collection of costs involving two vessels; the appeal separately addressed procedural rights, damages immunity, takings and statutory expenses. Opinion
Holding and disposition
The disposition was vacated/remanded in part. Emergency custody of a derelict vessel was permissible, but notice and a prompt meaningful hearing were required; those protections were violated. Officials nevertheless had qualified immunity from damages because the right was not then clearly established in the necessary respects. The court rejected the taking claim. For vessel 7430 the historical zero-price Waterworld disposition did not support the claimed expense recovery through the invoked repossession/sale statutes. For vessel 9362, USD 290 in actual impound fees could be collected, not unauthorized mooring rent. The opinion therefore does not prohibit all current vessel impound charges, award all requested damages, or grant a universal lien-free title. Opinion
Reasoning and practical scope
Full opinion verified across procedural due process, immunity, takings and both vessels’ expense branches. Wong (2004) actually relies on Brown’s procedural-protection analysis. Current 200-42/-49 include later hearing amendments; former 200-45 low-value provision was repealed in 2021. Historical statutory-cost conclusions must be reconciled with current text rather than copied as current blanket rules. Opinion; Opinion; HRS 0200–0042; HRS 0200–0043; HRS 0200–0045; HRS 0200–0049
Verification and treatment
The full opinion body was checked. The source is a full reported-opinion reproduction in the Harvard Caselaw Access Project, not a headnote or official court-hosted original. Targeted primary treatment/current-statute checks are described, without representing an exhaustive later-history or still-good-law certification. Original body and SHA-256 are retained in the Hawaii evidence register.
Applies in
hawaii · personal-property-execution-sales-by-state
Legal information, not legal advice. Last verified: 2026-10-18. Consult qualified local counsel about an actual dispute.