Tereick v. Hawaiian Riverbend, LLC
This text of Tereick v. Hawaiian Riverbend, LLC (Tereick v. Hawaiian Riverbend, LLC) 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 SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 26-APR-2019 10:06 AM
SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
CORY TEREICK, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
HAWAIIAN RIVERBEND, LLC, a Hawai#i limited liability company, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CIVIL NO. 14-1-429K)
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the “Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari and Writ of Mandamus and Any Other Appropriate Relief
the Court Deems Appropriate,” filed on April 1, 2019, which was
submitted by Michael Miroyan, individually and as the sole owner
of Hawaiian Riverbend, LLC, the documents attached thereto and
submitted in support thereof, and the record,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that as to the request for
certiorari review, the application for a writ of certiorari is
rejected. See HRS § 602-59(b). IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that as to the request for
mandamus or other appropriate relief, the request is denied. 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; where a court has discretion to act, mandamus will not
lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that discretion,
even when the judge has acted erroneously, unless the judge has
exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and
manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject
properly before the court under circumstances in which he or she
has a legal duty to act).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 26, 2019.
/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
Tereick v. Hawaiian Riverbend, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tereick-v-hawaiian-riverbend-llc-haw-2019.