SPD II Makaiwa Resort Development, LLC v. Case
This text of SPD II Makaiwa Resort Development, LLC v. Case (SPD II Makaiwa Resort Development, LLC v. Case) 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-16-0000856 05-JAN-2017 03:15 PM
SCPW-16-0000856 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________ SPD II MAKAIWA RESORT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Petitioner, vs. SUZANNE CASE, Chairperson of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai#i, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (DLNR FILE NO. KA-407)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner SPD II Makaiwa Resort
Development, LLC’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on
December 9, 2016, the documents attached thereto and submitted in
support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails
to demonstrate that it has a clear and indisputable right to the
requested relief and may raise its concerns in the pending matter
before the Department of Land and Natural Resources or in any
subsequent appeal, as appropriate. Petitioner, therefore, is not
entitled to the requested writ of mandamus. 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); Barnett v. Broderick, 84
Hawai#i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (a writ of mandamus
is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly
owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and
certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly
prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is
available). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 5, 2017.
/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
SPD II Makaiwa Resort Development, LLC v. Case, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spd-ii-makaiwa-resort-development-llc-v-case-haw-2017.