Kelepolo v. Fernandez
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.
Opinion
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 17-MAY-2021 11:08 AM Dkt. 6 ODDP
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
ANNETTE M. KELEPOLO, Respondent,
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.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CIVIL NO. 16-1-0453(1))
ORDER (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND (2) DISMISSING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY STAY PENDING REVIEW OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioners Grace L.W. Fernandez-
Chisholm and Nancy Fernandez’s (1) petition for writ of
mandamus,” filed on May 13, 2021, and (2) motion for extension of
temporary stay pending review of petition for writ of mandamus,
filed on May 14, 2021, and the record, petitioners fail to
demonstrate that the Intermediate Court of Appeals committed a
flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion in setting the
supersedeas bond amount as delineated in its April 12, 2021 order
in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. See Kelepolo v. Fernandez, 148 Hawai#i 182,
468 P.3d 196 (2020). The requested extraordinary writ is therefore not warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200,
204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (mandamus will not lie to
interfere with or control the exercise of the court’s 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 motion for an
extension of the stay pending review of the petition for writ of
mandamus is dismissed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 17, 2021.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Kelepolo v. Fernandez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelepolo-v-fernandez-haw-2021.