Keen v. Loo

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 11, 2019
DocketSCPW-19-0000131
StatusPublished

This text of Keen v. Loo (Keen v. Loo) 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
Keen v. Loo, (haw 2019).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 11-MAR-2019 09:59 AM SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________

HENRIQUE D. KEEN and PRESILLA E. KEEN, Petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE RHONDA I. L. LOO, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, D/B/A CHRISTIANA TRUST AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES TRUST III, Respondent. _________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 13-1-0784(1))

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioners Henrique D. Keen and

Presilla D. Keen’s petition for writ of prohibition, filed on

March 5, 2019, the documents attached thereto and submitted in

support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioners fail

to demonstrate that they are entitled to the requested writ of

prohibition or that they lacked alternative means to seek relief.

See Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580

P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of prohibition “is an extraordinary

remedy . . . to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his jurisdiction”); Gannett Pac. Corp. v.

Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 226, 580 P.2d 49, 53 (1978) (a writ of

prohibition is not meant to serve as a legal remedy in lieu of

normal appellate procedures; rather, it is available in “rare and

exigent circumstances” where “allow[ing] the matter to wend its

way through the appellate process would not be in the public

interest and would work upon the public irreparable harm”).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

prohibition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 11, 2019.

/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

Gannett Pacific Corp. v. Richardson
580 P.2d 49 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1978)
Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao
580 P.2d 58 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Keen v. Loo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keen-v-loo-haw-2019.