Marn v. Ashford
This text of Marn v. Ashford (Marn v. Ashford) 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 04-JAN-2021 01:31 PM Dkt. 13 ODDP
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________
ALEXANDER Y. MARN, as Trustee of the Revocable Living Trust Agreement of Alexander Y. Marn, and ALEXANDER Y. MARN, an individual, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE JAMES H. ASHFORD, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai‘i, Respondent Judge. _________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 98-5371-12)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Alexander Y. Marn’s
petition for writ of mandamus, filed on December 14, 2020, the
documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and
the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that
he is entitled to the requested extraordinary writ. See Kema v.
Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (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; such a writ is
meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court who 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 pending motion is
dismissed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 4, 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
Marn v. Ashford, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marn-v-ashford-haw-2021.