mere legal error in Hawaii

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

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

2003(Emphases added.) [4] "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). [5] "[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. a

2003(Emphases added.) [4] "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). [5] "[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. a

2003Marsland v. Shintaku, 64 Haw. 307 , 640 P.2d 289 (1982) (per curiam)). [6] HRS § 602-5(8) (1993) provides in pertinent part that "[a]ll cases addressed to the jurisdiction of the supreme court or of the intermediate appellate court shall be filed with the supreme court as shall be provided by rule of court." Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 21(a) requires, in pertinent part, as follows: Application for a writ directed to a judge shall be made by filing a petition with the clerk of the supreme court with proof of service on the respondent judge, all parties to the action in the

2003Marsland v. Shintaku, 64 Haw. 307 , 640 P.2d 289 (1982) (per curiam)). [6] HRS § 602-5(8) (1993) provides in pertinent part that "[a]ll cases addressed to the jurisdiction of the supreme court or of the intermediate appellate court shall be filed with the supreme court as shall be provided by rule of court." Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 21(a) requires, in pertinent part, as follows: Application for a writ directed to a judge shall be made by filing a petition with the clerk of the supreme court with proof of service on the respondent judge, all parties to the action in the

1978Chung 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).

1978Chung 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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