Waipio Valley Artworks L.L.C. v. Roth

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 4, 2022
DocketSCPW-22-0000089
StatusPublished

This text of Waipio Valley Artworks L.L.C. v. Roth (Waipio Valley Artworks L.L.C. v. Roth) 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
Waipio Valley Artworks L.L.C. v. Roth, (haw 2022).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 04-MAR-2022 09:57 AM Dkt. 7 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

WAIPIO VALLEY ARTWORKS L.L.C., a Hawai#i limited liability company; WAIPIO OHANA CORPORATION, a Hawai#i corporation dba WAIPIO VALLEY SHUTTLE; NA#ALAPA STABLES, LLC, a Hawai#i limited liability company; and MICHAEL OLIVAL, Petitioners,

vs.

MITCHELL D. ROTH, in his capacity as Mayor of the COUNTY OF HAWAII, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioners’ petition for writ of

mandamus, filed on February 28, 2022, and the record, the issues

and request for relief presented in the petition do not warrant

this court’s intervention by way of an extraordinary writ, and

petitioners have alternative means to seek relief, including

seeking relief in the circuit court as provided by law. 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); Barnett v.

Broderick, 84 Hawai#i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (with

respect to a public official, mandamus relief is available to

compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an

individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain,

the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as

to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available).

Accordingly,

It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is

denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 4, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

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)
Barnett v. Broderick
929 P.2d 1359 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Waipio Valley Artworks L.L.C. v. Roth, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waipio-valley-artworks-llc-v-roth-haw-2022.