Smith v. Chan
This text of Smith v. Chan (Smith v. Chan) 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-11-0000012 18-JAN-2011 02:39 PM
NO. SCPW-11-0000012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
EDWARD A. SMITH, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE DERRICK H.M. CHAN, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (P. NO. 88-0030)
ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, and Circuit Judge McKenna, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of petitioner Edward A. Smith's
papers filed on January 6, 2011, which are deemed a petition for
a writ of mandamus, it appears that petitioner fails to
demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief from the
respondent judge's decision on the October 22, 2009 petitions and
petitioner can appeal the decision to the intermediate court of
appeals. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus
relief. 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. 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.). 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 fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 18, 2011.
/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
Smith v. Chan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-chan-haw-2011.