Bikle v. District Court Judges of Hilo

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 7, 2018
DocketSCPW-18-0000806
StatusPublished

This text of Bikle v. District Court Judges of Hilo (Bikle v. District Court Judges of Hilo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bikle v. District Court Judges of Hilo, (haw 2018).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 07-NOV-2018 09:14 AM

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

PHILIP BIKLE, Petitioner,

vs.

DISTRICT COURT JUDGES OF HILO, District Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judges,

and

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NOS. 3DTC-16-005744 and 3DTI-16-016896)

ORDER DENYING “APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED WRIT OF MANDATE TO THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, COUNTY OF HAWAI#I, STATE OF HAWAI#I & APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY OF LOWER COURT PROCEEDINGS” (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Philip Bikle’s

“Application for Expedited Writ of Mandate to the Third Judicial

Circuit, County of Hawai#i, State of Hawai#i & Application for

Emergency Stay of Lower Court Proceedings,” filed on October 19,

2018, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support

thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to

demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested relief sought by way of an extraordinary writ and that he lacks alternative means

to seek relief. See HRS § 803-6(b); HRS § 286-10; HRPP Rule

5(b); Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338

(1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will

not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and

indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to

redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested

action); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241,

580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to

supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts,

cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of

normal appellate procedure). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus and the request for a stay of the district court

proceedings are denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 7, 2018.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao
580 P.2d 58 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1978)
Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bikle v. District Court Judges of Hilo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bikle-v-district-court-judges-of-hilo-haw-2018.