Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, Inc. v. Nacino

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 18, 2015
DocketSCPW-14-0001296
StatusPublished

This text of Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, Inc. v. Nacino (Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, Inc. v. Nacino) 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
Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, Inc. v. Nacino, (haw 2015).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-14-0001296 18-MAR-2015 11:57 AM

SCPW-14-0001296

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

CATHOLIC FOREIGN MISSION SOCIETY OF AMERICA, INC.,

aka MARYKNOLL FATHERS AND BROTHERS, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE EDWIN C. NACINO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent Judge,

and

JOHN ROE 2; SOCIETY OF THE PRIESTS OF SAINT SULPICE

a/k/a THE ASSOCIATED SULPICIANS OF THE UNITED STATES, INC.; and

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE STATE OF HAWAII, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CIV. NO. 12-1-1637-06)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Petitioner Catholic Foreign

Mission Society of America, Inc., aka Maryknoll Fathers and

Brothers’s petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on November

12, 2014, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support

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

demonstrate that, under the specific facts and circumstances of

this matter and the terms of the protective order, disclosure of

the requested documents pursuant to the protective order issued

by the Discovery Master violates article I, section 6 of the

Hawai'i Constitution. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to

a writ of mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204-05,

982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is meant to

restrain a judge of an inferior court who has exceeded his or her

jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of

discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before

the court under circumstances in which he or she has a legal duty

to act). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 18, 2015.

/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

Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, Inc. v. Nacino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catholic-foreign-mission-society-of-america-inc-v--haw-2015.