Teisina v. Nishimura

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 12, 2012
DocketSCPW-12-0000596
StatusPublished

This text of Teisina v. Nishimura (Teisina v. Nishimura) 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.

Bluebook
Teisina v. Nishimura, (haw 2012).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000596 12-JUL-2012 08:22 AM NO. SCPW-12-0000596

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

PENISIMANI TEISINA and LESIELI TEISINA, husband and wife,

Petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE RHONDA A. NISHIMURA, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAII; and HOVEY B. LAMBERT,

Trustee under the Hovey B. Lambert Trust, an Unrecorded

Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated April 5, 2002,

Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 09-1-2529-10)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba and McKenna, JJ.,

Circuit Judge Ahn, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, and

Circuit Judge Trader, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of Petitioners Penisimani Teisina

and Lesieli Teisina’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus to

Respondents Circuit Court Judge Rhonda A. Nishimura and Hovey B.

Lambert, Trustee Under the Hovey B. Lambert Trust, an Unrecorded

Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated April 5, 2002, the papers

in support and the records and files herein, it appears that:

(1) Petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Judge to vacate seven orders entered in Lambert v.

Waha(k), Civil No. 09-1-2529, presently pending in the Circuit

Court of the First Circuit and directing the Respondent Judge to

stay a partition sale and order a jury trial; (2) a writ of

mandamus is not intended to serve as a legal remedy in lieu of

the normal appellate procedures, Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaii 200,

204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999); and (3) Petitioners have a remedy

by way of appeal. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied without prejudice to any remedy Petitioners

may have by way of appeal.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 12, 2012.

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Karen S.S. Ahn

/s/ Rom A. Trader

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Teisina v. Nishimura, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teisina-v-nishimura-haw-2012.