Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Stop H-3 Ass’n., et al v. Coleman. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 3 page summation of a case involving opponents to the construction of a highway through the Moanalua Valley on Hawaii’s Oahu island. The facts of the case, procedural history, question before the court, ruling, rational and disposition are discussed. No bibliography is offered.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khh3oahu.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
of Transportation, et al. (1976) Facts of the case: The Moanalua Valley is located on the Hawaiian island of Oahu and is perceived by many citizens as having extreme
significance in Hawaiian history. The historical and cultural significance of the valley derives from Hawaiian folklore and tradition, which has continued into the current era. The valley includes Kamanui,
the "valley of great power" and Wolani, the "valley of the spirits," which Hawaiian tradition refers to as the "dwelling place of the gods." Also in the valley is a
forest that is still in a natural state. Owned by the royal house of Oahu, the valley was the scene of historical battles and exploits that are recounted in ancient
Hawaiian chants. This beautiful valley was chosen as the site for a proposed Interstate Highway designated H-3. Opponents of the H-3 have appealed the issue based on the argument that
Moanalua should be protected as an historical site. A particular focus of concern is that the proposed highway would pass within 100 to 200 feet of a large petroglyph
rock, which is known in Hawaiian culture as Pohakuy ka Luahine. This boulder is the largest free-standing petroglyph on the island and displays 22 carvings. The rock was designated an
historic site by the State Historic Preservation officer and the rock is considered sacred in the traditional Hawaiian belief system. Procedural history: H-3 was to be funded by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). State and Federal officials differed in their determinations of the valleys historic significance. The plaintiffs in the case felt that the Federal determination should take precedence
over the evaluation of the State board, but the district court attached more importance to the State boards determination of marginal historic significance. Question before the court: Should the
...