Murauskas v. Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 25, 2012
DocketSCPW-11-0001018
StatusPublished

This text of Murauskas v. Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii (Murauskas v. Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii) 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
Murauskas v. Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, (haw 2012).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-11-0001018 25-JAN-2012 01:47 PM

NO. SCPW-11-0001018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

KEITH MURAUSKAS, Petitioner,

vs.

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Keith Murauskas'

petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it

appears that petitioner has no clear and indisputable right to

appeal to the circuit court pursuant to HRCP Rule 72 inasmuch as

there is no statute that provides a right of review in the

circuit court of a decision or action of the supreme court

clerk's office. See HRCP Rule 72(a) ("Where a right of

redetermination or review in a circuit court is allowed by

statute, any person adversely affected by the decision, order or

action of a governmental official or body other than a court, may

appeal from such decision, order or action by filing a notice of

appeal in the circuit court having jurisdiction of the matter.")

(underscoring added). Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to

mandamus relief. See In re Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaii Supreme

Court, 91 Hawai'i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (1999) (Mandamus

relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty

allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is

clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so

plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy

is available.). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without

payment of the filing fee.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 25, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re the Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court
984 P.2d 688 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Murauskas v. Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murauskas-v-circuit-court-of-the-first-circuit-sta-haw-2012.