Suzuki v. Board of Public Accountancy
This text of Suzuki v. Board of Public Accountancy (Suzuki v. Board of Public Accountancy) 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-12-0000968 10-JAN-2013 10:45 AM
SCPW-12-0000968
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
NATHAN H. SUZUKI, Petitioner,
vs.
BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY; DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Circuit Judge Browning, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)
Upon consideration of petitioner Nathan H. Suzuki’s
petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on November 1, 2012, and
the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof,
it appears that petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Board of Public
Accountancy and/or the Department of Commerce and Consumer
Affairs are not performing duties that are owed to him.
Moreover, petitioner can seek further review in the circuit court
and the appellate court, as appropriate. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91
Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (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); State ex rel.
Marsland v. Ames, 71 Haw. 304, 306, 788 P.2d 1281, 1283 (1990) (a
writ of mandamus “may not be used to perform the office of an
appeal”); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai#i 109, 111, 929 P.2d
1359, 1361 (1996) (mandamus relief 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). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 10, 2013.
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ R. Mark Browning
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Suzuki v. Board of Public Accountancy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suzuki-v-board-of-public-accountancy-haw-2013.