In re Ashford

440 P.2d 76 (1968)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Ashford

Hawaii Supreme Court
440 P.2d 76 (1968)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

In the mid-1800s, as part of Hawaii’s land reform, King Kamehameha V deeded certain land to commoners by royal patent. The seaward boundary between private land and public beaches was determined based on tradition, practice, usage, and custom. Accordingly, the boundary between private land and public beaches was set according to the highest reach of high-tide waves, which was determined by the location of the line of sea-debris and the start of vegetation. Local experts, known as kamaaina, helped the King’s government determine the boundary lines, and kamaaina witnesses often provided determinative testimony in subsequent boundary disputes. Although there was an existing, contemporary United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) report about the average height of the high-water line on Hawaiian beaches, that data was not used to determine the seaward boundary of the Hawaiian private lands conveyed under the royal patents. Clinton and Joan Ashford (plaintiffs) filed a petition in land court to register title to coastal land originally deeded under royal patent. The Ashfords argued that the seaward boundary of their land should be determined based on the mean-high-water mark reported by the USCGS. The USCGS calculated the mean-high-water mark by intersecting the horizontal plane of the average height of high-tide with the shoreline. The State of Hawaii (defendant) challenged, arguing that (1) the high-water mark was the appropriate boundary; and (2) in accordance with Hawaiian tradition, the high-water mark should be determined based on the line of debris left by the wash of ordinary high-tide waves. At trial, Hawaii presented kamaaina witness testimony to establish the debris line. The trial court ruled in favor of the Ashfords and held that the seaward boundary of the Ashfords’ land should be determined based on the mean-high-water mark. Hawaii appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Richardson, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 833,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership