Moskowitz v. City Council of the City and County of Honolulu
This text of Moskowitz v. City Council of the City and County of Honolulu (Moskowitz v. City Council of the City and County of Honolulu) 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 14-FEB-2019 01:25 PM
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________
DAVE MOSKOWITZ; KATHRYN HENSKI; DOUGLAS E. CRUM, Petitioners,
vs.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU (Ann Kobayashi, in her official capacity as Chair and Presiding Officer of the City Council of the City and County of Honolulu, Ron Menor, in his capacity as Vice-Chair of the City Council of the City and County of Honolulu, and Carol Fukunaga, Kymberly Pine, Heidi Tsuneyoshi, Ikaika Anderson, Joey Manahan, and Brandon Elefante, as members of the City Council of the City and County of Honolulu); GLEN I. TAKAHASHI, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City and County of Honolulu; PAUL S. AOKI, in his capacity as Acting Corporation Counsel of the City and County of Honolulu, Respondents. _________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioners Dave Moskowitz,
Kathryn Henski, and Douglas E. Crum’s petition for writ of
mandamus, filed on January 24, 2019, and the record, it appears
that petitioners’ request for an extraordinary writ is not
warranted inasmuch as Section 3-105 of the Revised Charter of the
City and County of Honolulu sets forth the process to fill a vacancy in the office of any councilmember for the City and
County of Honolulu. 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). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 14, 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Moskowitz v. City Council of the City and County of Honolulu, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moskowitz-v-city-council-of-the-city-and-county-of-honolulu-haw-2019.