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