Kaaialii v. To'oto'o
This text of Kaaialii v. To'oto'o (Kaaialii v. To'oto'o) 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-XX-XXXXXXX 15-OCT-2020 01:50 PM Dkt. 12 ODDP
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
DUANE KAAPEA KAAIALII, Petitioner vs.
THE HONORABLE FA#AUUGA TO#OTO#O, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,
and
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Kawano, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of petitioner Duane Kaapea
Kaaialii’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on September 27,
2020, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support
thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to
demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the
requested relief, that he lacks alternative means to seek relief,
or that the respondent judge committed a flagrant and manifest
abuse of discretion in denying his motions for release.
Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested
extraordinary writ from this court. 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.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the
appellate court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus
without payment of the filing fees.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 15, 2020.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Kelsey T. Kawano
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Kaaialii v. To'oto'o, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaaialii-v-tootoo-haw-2020.