Hirahara v. Gangnes

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 22, 2016
DocketSCPW-16-0000802
StatusPublished

This text of Hirahara v. Gangnes (Hirahara v. Gangnes) 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
Hirahara v. Gangnes, (haw 2016).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000802 21-NOV-2016 01:51 PM

SCPW-16-0000802

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ARNOLD HIRAHARA, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE HILARY BENSON GANGNES, Judge of the District Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

KAYLA M. MALSOL BRITT, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (1SS16-1-001046)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, J.J.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Arnold Hirahara’s

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on November 14, 2016, the

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and

the record, it appears that petitioner may submit his exhibits at

the hearing on the petition to enjoin and may seek relief, as

appropriate, in any subsequent appeal. Petitioner, therefore, is

not entitled to the requested 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 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; where a court

has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or

control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has

acted erroneously, unless the judge 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 writ of

mandamus is denied without prejudice.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 21, 2016.

/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)
Hirahara v. Gangnes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirahara-v-gangnes-haw-2016.