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