Poepoe v. Bissen
This text of Poepoe v. Bissen (Poepoe v. Bissen) 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 18-JUN-2019 02:31 PM
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
IVAN P. POEPOE, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE RICHARD T. BISSEN, JR., Judge of the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,
and
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NO. 2CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Ivan P. Poepoe’s
emergency petition for writ of mandamus, filed on June 14, 2019,
the supplemental memorandum, filed on June 17, 2019, the
respective supporting documents, and the record, it appears that,
at this juncture and based on the record presented to the court,
petitioner is not entitled to the requested extraordinary writ.
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;
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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59
Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not
intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the
trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy
in lieu of normal appellate procedure). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 18, 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
Poepoe v. Bissen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poepoe-v-bissen-haw-2019.