Ramos-Elsenbach v. Van De Car
This text of Ramos-Elsenbach v. Van De Car (Ramos-Elsenbach v. Van De Car) 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 30745 26-OCT-2010 03:04 PM
NO. 30745
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
RONDA LEE RAMOS-ELSENBACH, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE LLOYD VAN DE CAR, JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I; and THE HONORABLE GREG K. NAKAMURA, SENIOR JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(FC-D No. 07-01-132K)
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.
and Circuit Judge McKenna, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of petitioner Ronda Lee
Ramos-Elsenbach's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers
in support, it appears that: (1) petitioner fails to demonstrate
a clear and indisputable right to the relief requested; (2)
petitioner can seek review of the respondent judges' rulings by
appealing from the divorce decree entered in FC-D 07-1-132K; and
(3) the question of the disqualification of the presiding judge
is not a question that cannot otherwise be reviewed on
petitioner's appeal from the divorce decree. Therefore,
petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary relief. See Kema v.
Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus or prohibition 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.
Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary
authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as
legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures.); Peters
v. Jamieson, 48 Haw. 247, 257, 397 P.2d 575, 582-83 (1964) (A
writ of prohibition will lie to compel the disqualification of a
trial judge where the question of disqualification cannot
otherwise be reviewed.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai' October 26, 2010. i,
/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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ramos-Elsenbach v. Van De Car, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-elsenbach-v-van-de-car-haw-2010.