Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of American Samoa

Ala'ilima v American Samoa Government [2014] ASHC 22; CA 22-09 (11 April 2014)

SLIP OPINIONS

OF THE

TRIAL DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2014)

BIRDSALL ALA‟ILIMA, for himself and his minor daughter MARLENE ALIA ALA‟ILIMA,
Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT, SALA, FREDERICK O‟BRIEN, HAWAIIAN AIRLINES and DOES I-XX,
Defendants.

High Court of American Samoa
Trial Division

CA No. 22-09

April 11, 2014

[1] The court may grant a motion for reconsideration or a new trial based upon a manifest error of law or mistake of fact, a decision contrary to the clear weight of evidence, a decision that is manifestly unjust, an intervening change in the law, or the discovery of previously unavailable evidence. However, a judgment will not be set aside except for substantial reasons.

[2] On review of a motion for reconsideration, the Court will not construct a legal theory on behalf of the moving party.

[3] It is the responsibility of the movant to fully articulate his or her arguments in opposition to the original order and to provide the court with research and justification beyond unadorned, conclusory statements.

[4] The Court will not reverse a dismissal of Plaintiffs‘ unconstitutional stop order claim more than four years after the fact based on a second motion for reconsideration that is entirely unsupported by factual or legal arguments.

[5] It is apodictic that a party moving for reconsideration must do more than reiterate our reasons for a decision and then make a blind assertion that we were incorrect.

[6] The High Court has previously identified the matai title system, communal land ownership, and Samoan language as the "pillars of fa’a Samoa."

[7] The freedom of speech is not absolute.

[8] United States Supreme Court precedent has established that vulgar, offensive, and shocking speech is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection.

[9] Federal precedent provides for local discretion with respect to specific types of speech so that what constitutes obscene speech rests in part on a local or community "prurient interests" standard.

[10] Whether a "public attack" runs afoul of Section 4 is determined by whether the comment is malicious, unjustifiable, and deleterious to traditional Samoan cultural standards of comity, respect, dignity, or honor.