Tierney v. State
This text of Tierney v. State (Tierney v. State) 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-14-0000416 11-FEB-2014 11:27 AM
SCPW-14-0000416
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,
vs.
COUNTY OF HAWAI'I, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(Civ. No. 00-1-377)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney’s
petition for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on February 4,
2014, and the record, it appears that petitioner is not entitled
to the requested mandamus relief. Petitioner fails to
demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the
$5,000 that he requests in the petition, and has alternative
means of seeking 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). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 11, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tierney v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tierney-v-state-haw-2014.