Mundon v. Nakashima
This text of Mundon v. Nakashima (Mundon v. Nakashima) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 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-17-0000589 09-AUG-2017 03:21 PM
SCPW-17-0000589
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
ELIA IKAIKA MUNDON, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE STEVEN M. NAKASHIMA, Judge of the Family Court of
the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i, Respondent Judge,
and
CHEVELLE LEIHOKU MUNDON nka CHEVELLE LEIHOKU TEVES, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(FC-D NO. 10-1-302)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Elia Ikaika Mundon’s
petition for writ of mandamus, filed on August 7, 2017, the
documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and
the record, it appears that, at this juncture, petitioner fails
to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the
requested relief or that the respondent judge committed a
flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion in denying his motion
for the immediate physical and legal custody of his minor
children. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the relief
requested. 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; where a court has discretion to act, mandamus will not
lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that 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.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 9, 2017. /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
Mundon v. Nakashima, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mundon-v-nakashima-hawapp-2017.