Woerner v. Bennett

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 2, 2010
Docket30625
StatusPublished

This text of Woerner v. Bennett (Woerner v. Bennett) 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
Woerner v. Bennett, (haw 2010).

Opinion

LAW L|BRAFRY

NO. 30625

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAl¢» §§

‘ §

G’?

ANDREW D. WOERNER, Petitioner, @Q

vs . §§

MARK J. BENNETT, Attorney General, State of H` aii, an

¥Q

LINDA LINGLE, sovern@r, state of Hawai‘i,-`

COLLEEN HANABUSA, President of the Senate; CALVlN K. Y. SAY, Speaker of the House; BRIAN T. TANlGUCHI, Chair of the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee;

JON RIKI KARAMATSU, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee;

JOSH GREEN, M.D., State Senator; and DENNY COFFMAN, State

Representative, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

s ORDER (By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy,

and Recktenwald, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by petitioner Andrew D. Woerner, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to

relief. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus

relief. ee HRS § 602-5(3) (2009) (“The supreme court shall have

jurisdiction and power [t]o exercise original jurisdiction

in all questions arising under writs of mandamus directed

to public officers to compel them to fulfill the duties of their

offices[.]);” In re. DisciplinarV Bd. Of the Hawaii Supreme

Court, 9l Hawai‘i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (l999) (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.); Salling v. Moon, 76 HawaiU_273, 274 n. 3, 874 P.2d lO98, 1099 n.3 (l994) (“A duty is ministerial where the law

prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion and judgment.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY OR_DERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, HawaiHq AuguSt 2, 2010_ w

tX@u¢m Ch“f\AJ

Wa¢~\_£. "0‘*@-€};()\'

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re the Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court
984 P.2d 688 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Woerner v. Bennett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woerner-v-bennett-haw-2010.