Wagner v. Hiraoka

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 17, 2018
DocketSCPW-18-0000670
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Wagner v. Hiraoka, (haw 2018).

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

Gannett Pacific Corp. v. Richardson
580 P.2d 49 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1978)
Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wagner v. Hiraoka, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagner-v-hiraoka-haw-2018.