Johnson v. Laderta
This text of Johnson v. Laderta (Johnson v. Laderta) 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-13-0000932 24-JUN-2013 10:23 AM
SCPW-13-0000932
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
ANTHONY JOHNSON, Petitioner,
vs.
MARIE LADERTA, WANDA CHONG-MENDONCA, and ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ADLRO CASE NOS. 12-07002, 13-01883)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Anthony Johnson’s
petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition, filed on May
17, 2013, and the documents attached thereto and submitted in
support thereof, it appears that petitioner’s license was revoked
at the time of his April 11, 2013 arrest (ADLRO No. 13-01883)
and, therefore, he did not have a clear and indisputable right to
an ignition interlock permit in ADLRO No. 13-01883. See HRS §
291E-44.5(b)(1) (Supp. 2012). In addition, petitioner has alternative means to obtain the requested relief. See Kema v.
Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of
mandamus and/or a writ of prohibition 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); State ex rel. Marsland v. Ames, 71 Haw. 304, 306, 788
P.2d 1281, 1283 (1990) (“[T]he mere fact that other remedies are
not available has never in itself been sufficient justification
for [a writ].”); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai#i 109, 111, 929
P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (mandamus relief is available to compel an
official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only
if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s
duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from
doubt, and no other remedy is available). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus and/or prohibition is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 24, 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
Johnson v. Laderta, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-laderta-haw-2013.