Schmidt v. Nakamoto
This text of Schmidt v. Nakamoto (Schmidt v. Nakamoto) 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 17-NOV-2020 01:16 PM Dkt. 19 ODDP
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
THOMAS FRANK SCHMIDT and LORINNA JHINCIL SCHMIDT, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE HENRY T. NAKAMOTO, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,
and
HSC, INC., a Hawai#i Corporation; RICHARD HENDERSON, SR.; and ELEANOR R.J. HENDERSON, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 3CC061000228)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna and Wilson, JJ., Circuit Judge Cataldo, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Remigio, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of petitioner Thomas Frank Schmidt
and Lorinna Jhincil Schmidt’s petition for writ of mandamus,
filed on October 20, 2020, the documents attached thereto and
submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that
petitioners fail to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to
the requested relief and have alternative means to seek relief.
Petitioners, therefore, are 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; 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 procedures). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 17, 2020.
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Catherine H. Remigio
/s/ Lisa W. Cataldo
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Schmidt v. Nakamoto, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-nakamoto-haw-2020.