Kelepolo v. Fernandez

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 2, 2018
DocketSCWC-18-0000138
StatusPublished

This text of Kelepolo v. Fernandez (Kelepolo v. Fernandez) 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
Kelepolo v. Fernandez, (haw 2018).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 02-NOV-2018 01:39 PM

SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ANNETTE M. KELEPOLO, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

GRACIANO KEHOPU FERNANDEZ, NANCY FERNANDEZ, GRACE LYN W. FERNANDEZ-CHISHOLM, DAMIEN K. KAINA, JR., FRANK I. KAINA, JOSEPH T. KAINA, PATRICK KAINA, TAMARA SMITH-KAUKINI, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CIVIL NO. 16-1-0453(1))

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND DIRECTING ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioners’ application for writ

of certiorari or in the alternative petition for writ of

mandamus, filed on September 5, 2018, respondent’s response to

the application for writ of certiorari, filed on October 3, 2018,

the respective supporting documents, and the record, it appears

that petitioner is seeking certiorari review of the Intermediate

Court of Appeals’ August 15, 2018 order granting in part the

motions for stay and the September 4, 2018 order denying the

motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, a writ of

mandamus. The August 15, 2018 and September 4, 2018 orders are

not reviewable by the supreme court by application for a writ of certiorari. See HRAP 40.1(a); HRS §§ 602-5(a)(1) and 602-59(a).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. As to the request for certiorari review, the

application for a writ of certiorari is dismissed.

2. As to the request for mandamus relief:

a. Within twenty (20) days from the date of this

order, the respondent shall file an answer to the petition.

b. The appellate clerk shall serve a copy of

this order upon the respondent as required by HRAP Rule 21(c).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 2, 2018.

/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

§ 602-5
Hawaii § 602-5(a)(1)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kelepolo v. Fernandez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelepolo-v-fernandez-haw-2018.