Blumer-Buell v. Heely
This text of Blumer-Buell v. Heely (Blumer-Buell v. Heely) 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.
Opinion
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0005129 11-DEC-2013 10:40 AM
SCPW-13-0005129
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
JOHN BLUMER-BUELL, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE ADRIANNE HEELEY OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, HANA SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (DC-SC 13-1-0061)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner John Blumer-Buell’s
petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on November 6, 2013, the
supporting documents, and the record, it appears that petitioner
is attempting to take an appeal not provided by statute. See HRS
633-28(a) (“There shall be no appeal from a judgment of the small
claims division[.]”). Moreover, petitioner fails to show any
grounds entitling him to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of
mandamus. See 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; rather, it is meant to restrain a
judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his
or her jurisdiction); Chamber v. Leavey, 60 Haw. 52, 587 P.2d 807
(1978) (affirming the dismissal of tenant’s petition for a writ
of mandamus against landlord and judge of small claims court who
denied tenant’s claim for return of security deposit and
subsequent motion for reconsideration). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 11, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Blumer-Buell v. Heely, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumer-buell-v-heely-haw-2013.