Kaplan v. Nakamura

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedApril 4, 2014
DocketSCPW-14-0000523
StatusPublished

This text of Kaplan v. Nakamura (Kaplan v. Nakamura) 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
Kaplan v. Nakamura, (haw 2014).

Opinion

SCPW-14-0000523 Electronically Filed IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I Supreme Court SCPW-14-0000523 ALLENE KAPLAN, Petitioner, 04-APR-2014 12:29 PM vs.

THE HONORABLE GREG K. NAKAMURA, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, Respondent Judge,

and

STANLEY MARTIN LEHMAN, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 11-1-000146)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Circuit Judge Kubo, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner Allene Kaplan’s

petition for a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus, filed

on March 5, 2014, the documents submitted in support thereof, and

the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that

she has a clear and indisputable right to the requested

extraordinary relief, and petitioner has alternative means to

seek relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of

prohibition or a writ of mandamus. 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao,

59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus and

a writ of prohibition are extraordinary remedies meant to, among

other things, restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting

beyond or in excess of his or her jurisdiction; they are not

intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the

trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy

in lieu of normal appellate procedure). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

prohibition and a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 4, 2014.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Edward H. Kubo, Jr.

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)
Kaplan v. Nakamura, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-nakamura-haw-2014.