Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
53 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2023 9 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Hawaii courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kema v. Gaddisgreen2 sentences2023See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaiʻi 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; a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures). 2022See 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; such a writ is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures). | 45 | 45 |
Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takaogreen2 sentences2021See HRS 634J-7; 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241 , 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure). 2021See HRS 634J-7; 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241 , 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure). | 38 | 38 |
Oili v. Changgreen2 sentences2018See Oili v. Chang, 57 Haw. 411, 412 , 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976) (the supreme court will not exercise its original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings when no special reason exists for invoking its jurisdiction”); 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241 , 580 P.2d 58, 62 ( 2018See Oili v. Chang, 57 Haw. 411, 412 , 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976) (the supreme court will not exercise its original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings when no special reason exists for invoking its jurisdiction”); 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241 , 580 P.2d 58, 62 ( | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Courtgreen1 sentence2014See 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241 , 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure; rather, it is | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chambers v. Leavey
green
2 sentences2013See 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241 , 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure; rather, it is 2013See 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241 , 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure; rather, it is | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Oshiro
green
2 sentences2003"The writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy, the object of which is not to cure a mere legal error or to serve as a substitute for appeal, but to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his jurisdiction.” Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241 , 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (citations omitted). . "[A] writ of mandamus will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates 1) a clear and undisputed right to relief; and 2) a lack of other means to adequately redress the wrong or to obtain the requested action.” Oshiro, 69 Haw. at 441 , 746 P.2d at 570 2003"The writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy, the object of which is not to cure a mere legal error or to serve as a substitute for appeal, but to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his jurisdiction.” Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241 , 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (citations omitted). . "[A] writ of mandamus will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates 1) a clear and undisputed right to relief; and 2) a lack of other means to adequately redress the wrong or to obtain the requested action.” Oshiro, 69 Haw. at 441 , 746 P.2d at 570 | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State Ex Rel. Marsland v. Shintaku
green
2 sentences2003Marsland v. Shintaku, 64 Haw. 307 , 640 P.2d 289 (1982) (per curiam)). . 2003Marsland v. Shintaku, 64 Haw. 307 , 640 P.2d 289 (1982) (per curiam)). . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Chung v. Ogata
green
2 sentences1978Chung v. Ogata, 54 Haw. 146 , 504 P.2d 868 (1972); Nakagawa v. Heen, 58 Haw. 314 , 568 P.2d 508 (1977). 1978Chung v. Ogata, 54 Haw. 146 , 504 P.2d 868 (1972); Nakagawa v. Heen, 58 Haw. 314 , 568 P.2d 508 (1977). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Carvalho
green
1 sentence1978Chung v. Ogata, 54 Haw. 146 , 504 P.2d 868 (1972); Nakagawa v. Heen, 58 Haw. 314 , 568 P.2d 508 (1977). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Nakagawa v. Heen
green
1 sentence1978Chung v. Ogata, 54 Haw. 146 , 504 P.2d 868 (1972); Nakagawa v. Heen, 58 Haw. 314 , 568 P.2d 508 (1977). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Wailuku Sugar Co. v. Kaiue
neutral
1 sentence1972The prosecution admitted during the course of its oral argument in this court, and we agree, that Judge Ogata had jurisdiction, in a strict legal sense, to order the production of the grand jury transcript, see Salvador v. Doi, 50 Haw. 249 , 438 P.2d 392 (1968); that in granting Rapanal’s and Kane’s motion Judge Ogata committed, at most, a mere legal error rather than an act *149 in excess of his jurisdiction, cf. Andrews v. Whitney, 21 Haw. 264 (1912); that Rapanal’s and Kane’s case was properly lodged in Judge Ogata’s court, cf. Wailuku Sugar Co. v. Kaiue, 8 Haw. 537 (1892); and that Judge O | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Andrews v. Whitney
green
1 sentence1972The prosecution admitted during the course of its oral argument in this court, and we agree, that Judge Ogata had jurisdiction, in a strict legal sense, to order the production of the grand jury transcript, see Salvador v. Doi, 50 Haw. 249 , 438 P.2d 392 (1968); that in granting Rapanal’s and Kane’s motion Judge Ogata committed, at most, a mere legal error rather than an act *149 in excess of his jurisdiction, cf. Andrews v. Whitney, 21 Haw. 264 (1912); that Rapanal’s and Kane’s case was properly lodged in Judge Ogata’s court, cf. Wailuku Sugar Co. v. Kaiue, 8 Haw. 537 (1892); and that Judge O | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Salvador v. Doi
neutral
2 sentences1972The prosecution admitted during the course of its oral argument in this court, and we agree, that Judge Ogata had jurisdiction, in a strict legal sense, to order the production of the grand jury transcript, see Salvador v. Doi, 50 Haw. 249 , 438 P.2d 392 (1968); that in granting Rapanal’s and Kane’s motion Judge Ogata committed, at most, a mere legal error rather than an act *149 in excess of his jurisdiction, cf. Andrews v. Whitney, 21 Haw. 264 (1912); that Rapanal’s and Kane’s case was properly lodged in Judge Ogata’s court, cf. Wailuku Sugar Co. v. Kaiue, 8 Haw. 537 (1892); and that Judge O 1972The prosecution admitted during the course of its oral argument in this court, and we agree, that Judge Ogata had jurisdiction, in a strict legal sense, to order the production of the grand jury transcript, see Salvador v. Doi, 50 Haw. 249 , 438 P.2d 392 (1968); that in granting Rapanal’s and Kane’s motion Judge Ogata committed, at most, a mere legal error rather than an act *149 in excess of his jurisdiction, cf. Andrews v. Whitney, 21 Haw. 264 (1912); that Rapanal’s and Kane’s case was properly lodged in Judge Ogata’s court, cf. Wailuku Sugar Co. v. Kaiue, 8 Haw. 537 (1892); and that Judge O | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Peters v. Jamieson
green
2 sentences1972The prosecution admitted during the course of its oral argument in this court, and we agree, that Judge Ogata had jurisdiction, in a strict legal sense, to order the production of the grand jury transcript, see Salvador v. Doi, 50 Haw. 249 , 438 P.2d 392 (1968); that in granting Rapanal’s and Kane’s motion Judge Ogata committed, at most, a mere legal error rather than an act *149 in excess of his jurisdiction, cf. Andrews v. Whitney, 21 Haw. 264 (1912); that Rapanal’s and Kane’s case was properly lodged in Judge Ogata’s court, cf. Wailuku Sugar Co. v. Kaiue, 8 Haw. 537 (1892); and that Judge O 1972The prosecution admitted during the course of its oral argument in this court, and we agree, that Judge Ogata had jurisdiction, in a strict legal sense, to order the production of the grand jury transcript, see Salvador v. Doi, 50 Haw. 249 , 438 P.2d 392 (1968); that in granting Rapanal’s and Kane’s motion Judge Ogata committed, at most, a mere legal error rather than an act *149 in excess of his jurisdiction, cf. Andrews v. Whitney, 21 Haw. 264 (1912); that Rapanal’s and Kane’s case was properly lodged in Judge Ogata’s court, cf. Wailuku Sugar Co. v. Kaiue, 8 Haw. 537 (1892); and that Judge O | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.