Holcomb v. Ashford

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 16, 2016
DocketSCPW-16-0000605
StatusPublished

This text of Holcomb v. Ashford (Holcomb v. Ashford) 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
Holcomb v. Ashford, (haw 2016).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000605 16-SEP-2016 01:19 PM

SCPW-16-0000605

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________

RICHARD L. HOLCOMB, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE JAMES H. ASHFORD, Judge of the District Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

THE STATE OF HAWAI#I and ERIC KOBASHIGAWA, Respondents. _________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 1DTA-16-01292)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Richard L. Holcomb’s

petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition, filed on

September 1, 2016, the documents attached thereto and submitted

in support thereof, and the record, it appears that, at this

time, petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and

indisputable right to the requested relief or that he lacks

alternative means to seek relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not

entitled to the requested writ of mandamus and/or writ of prohibition. 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; it is meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court from

acting beyond or in excess of his or her jurisdiction); Honolulu

Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a

writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that is meant to

restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in

excess of his jurisdiction). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus and/or prohibition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 16, 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

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)
Holcomb v. Ashford, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holcomb-v-ashford-haw-2016.