Poepoe v. Bissen

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedJune 18, 2019
DocketSCPW-19-0000438
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Poepoe v. Bissen, (haw 2019).

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

Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao
580 P.2d 58 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1978)
Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Poepoe v. Bissen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poepoe-v-bissen-haw-2019.