Wagner v. Hiraoka
This text of Wagner v. Hiraoka (Wagner v. Hiraoka) 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-XX-XXXXXXX 17-OCT-2018 02:02 PM SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________
EDWARD WAGNER, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE KEITH K. HIRAOKA, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,
and
STEPHEN KEAWE ROY; REBECCA ROY; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO.; GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.; TIMOTHY DAYTON; RICHARD DWYER; and JOHN DORNAN, Respondents. _________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 13-1-2053-07)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Edward Wagner’s
petition for writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus, filed on
August 27, 2018, the documents attached thereto and submitted in
support thereof, and the record, it appears that the respondent
judge complied with the procedure set forth in Grube v. Trader,
142 Hawai#i 412, 420 P.3d 343 (2018) in addressing the sealing
issue, an appeal is pending in the Intermediate Court of Appeals
(CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX), and petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested extraordinary writ. 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); Gannett Pac. Corp.
v. Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 226, 580 P.2d 49, 53 (1978) (a
petition for writ of prohibition is not meant to serve as a legal
remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
prohibition and writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 17, 2018.
/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
Wagner v. Hiraoka, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagner-v-hiraoka-haw-2018.