§602-59 Review of decision of the
intermediate appellate court, certiorari. (a) After issuance of the
intermediate appellate court's judgment or dismissal order, a party may seek
review of the intermediate appellate court's decision and judgment or dismissal
order only by application to the supreme court for a writ of certiorari, the
acceptance or rejection of which shall be discretionary upon the supreme court.
(b) The application for writ of certiorari
shall tersely state its grounds, which shall include:
(1) Grave errors of law or of fact; or
(2) Obvious inconsistencies in the decision of the
intermediate appellate court with that of the supreme court, federal decisions,
or its own decision,
and the magnitude of those errors or inconsistencies
dictating the need for further appeal.
(c) An application for a writ of certiorari
may be filed with the supreme court no later than thirty days after the filing
of the judgment or dismissal order of the intermediate appellate court. Upon a
written request filed prior to the expiration of the thirty-day period, a party
may extend the time for filing an application for a writ of certiorari for no
more than an additional thirty days. A response to an application for a writ
of certiorari may be filed no later than fifteen days after the application is
filed. Upon a timely written request by a party, the clerk of the court shall
grant one extension of time for no more than fifteen days for filing a response
to an application for a writ of certiorari. The clerk of the court shall note
on the record that the extension was granted. The clerk of the court shall
give notice that the request is timely and granted. A request is timely only
if it is received by the clerk of the court within the original time for filing
of the response. The supreme court shall determine to accept the application
within thirty days after a response is or could have been filed. The failure
of the supreme court to accept within thirty days shall constitute a rejection
of the application.
(d) Upon the acceptance of the application,
the clerk shall forward the complete file of the case to the supreme court.
Supplemental briefs shall be accepted from the parties only upon the request of
the supreme court. [L 1979, c 111, pt of §3; am L 1997, c 24, §1; am L 2004, c
202, §59; am L 2006, c 94, §1 and c 149, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1; am L 2011, c
77, §1; am L 2017, c 112, §1]
Note
Applicability of 2011 amendment. L 2011, c 77, §3.
Applicability of subsection (c) to cases in which the
intermediate appellate court's judgment or dismissal order was filed before
July 10, 2017. L 2017, c 112, §3.
Rules of Court
Writ of certiorari, see HRAP rule 40.1.
Law Journals and Reviews
The Development of Hawai`i's Appellate Courts: An
Organizational Perspective. 33 UH L. Rev. 875 (2011).
Case Notes
Where appellate court's amended order denying reconsideration
corrected only clerical errors and did not materially alter rights or
obligations, entry of amended order did not extend time within which petitioner
was required to file application for certiorari under subsection (c) and HRAP
rule 40.1(a); petitioner's application for certiorari was thus untimely. 94 H.
297, 12 P.3d 1238 (2000).
Where summary disposition order of the intermediate court of
appeals contained no grave errors of law or fact and was not obviously
inconsistent with the appellate case law of this State, defendant's application
for writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. 101 H. 127, 63 P.3d
1097 (2002).
The Hawaii supreme court had jurisdiction pursuant to
subsection (a) to consider various procedural issues implicated by pro se
proceedings before the labor and industrial relations appeals board and the
intermediate court of appeals (ICA) because the addition of the phrase "or
dismissal order" to subsection (a) clarified that an application for writ
of certiorari may be filed after the ICA issues a dispositional order that may
not be a "judgment". 140 H. 226, 398 P.3d 815 (2016).
Notes of Decisions
Waltrip v. TS Enter., Inc., 398 P.3d 815 (Haw. 2016).
· cites it 33× “” It can be further inferred from the legislature’s minimal discussion regarding the addition of the phrase “or dismissal order” that 9 Act 149 of the 2006 legislative session amended HRS § 602-59 to read as follows: “(a) After issuance of the intermediate appellate court’s…”
State v. Uchima., 464 P.3d 852 (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 20× “HRS § 602-59 grants a party the right to petition this court for discretionary review of an ICA judgment or dismissal order by submitting an application for writ of certiorari no later than thirty days after the filing of the ICA’s judgment or dismissal order.”
State v. Fields, 168 P.3d 955 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 20× “Application for Writ of Certiorari When determining whether to grant or deny an application for writ of certiorari, this court reviews decisions for (1) grave errors of law or of fact, or (2) obvious inconsistencies in the decision of the ICA with that of the supreme court,…”
Attorney's Fees of Mohr v. Powers, 32 P.3d 647 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 24× “The statute providing for appeals from ICA decisions, HRS § 602-59 (1993 & Supp. 1999), provides in relevant part: (a) After issuance of a decision by the intermediate appellate court, a party may appeal such decision only by application to the supreme court for a writ of…”
State v. Murray, 169 P.3d 955 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 14× “NOTES [1] Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-59 (Supp.2006), a party may appeal the decision and judgment of the intermediate appellate court (the ICA) only by an application to this court for a writ of certiorari.”
State v. Hussein. , 229 P.3d 313 (Haw. 2010).
· cites it 12× “The statute’s plain language confirms this, stating that “a party may seek review of the [ICA’s] decision and judgment or dismissal order only by application .”
State v. Manewa, 167 P.3d 336 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 12× “In determining whether to accept or reject the application for writ of certiorari, this court reviews the ICA decision for: (1) Grave errors of law or of fact; or (2) Obvious inconsistencies in the decision of the [ICA] with that of the supreme court, federal decisions, or its…”
In the Interest of Doe, 20 P.3d 616 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Certiorari From The Intermediate Court Of Appeals Appeals from the ICA are governed by HRS § 602-59(b) (1993), which prescribes that an application for writ of certiorari shall tersely state its grounds which must include (1) grave errors of law or of fact, or (2) obvious…”
State v. Wheeler, 219 P.3d 1170 (Haw. 2009).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 602-59(a) (Supp.2008). In deciding whether to accept an application, this court reviews the decisions of the ICA for (1) grave errors of law or of fact or (2) obvious inconsistencies in the decision of the ICA with that of the supreme court, federal decisions, or its own…”
Doe v. Doe, 52 P.3d 255 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 8× “See HRS § 602-59(a). B. Questions of Law Interpretation of the relevant statutes and the issue whether the defenses of res judicata and equitable estoppel can be applied in a chapter 584 paternity proceeding are questions of law.”
State v. Shannon, 185 P.3d 200 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 14× “NOTES [1] Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-59 (Supp.2007), a party may appeal the decision of the ICA.”
State v. Eberly, 112 P.3d 725 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 8× “" We granted certiorari because the ICA's opinion is "inconsisten[t]," see HRS § 602-59(b) (1993), with State v. Locquiao, 100 Hawai`i 195, 58 P.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-59(a) — 159 cases
Waltrip v. TS Enter., Inc., 398 P.3d 815 (Haw. 2016).
“” It can be further inferred from the legislature’s minimal discussion regarding the addition of the phrase “or dismissal order” that 9 Act 149 of the 2006 legislative session amended HRS § 602-59 to read as follows: “(a) After issuance of the intermediate appellate court’s…”
State v. Murray, 169 P.3d 955 (Haw. 2007).
“NOTES [1] Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-59 (Supp.2006), a party may appeal the decision and judgment of the intermediate appellate court (the ICA) only by an application to this court for a writ of certiorari.”
State v. Uchima., 464 P.3d 852 (Haw. 2020).
“HRS § 602-59 grants a party the right to petition this court for discretionary review of an ICA judgment or dismissal order by submitting an application for writ of certiorari no later than thirty days after the filing of the ICA’s judgment or dismissal order.”
State v. Hussein. , 229 P.3d 313 (Haw. 2010).
“The statute’s plain language confirms this, stating that “a party may seek review of the [ICA’s] decision and judgment or dismissal order only by application .”
State v. Manewa, 167 P.3d 336 (Haw. 2007).
“In determining whether to accept or reject the application for writ of certiorari, this court reviews the ICA decision for: (1) Grave errors of law or of fact; or (2) Obvious inconsistencies in the decision of the [ICA] with that of the supreme court, federal decisions, or its…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-59(a)(1993) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-59(b) — 60 cases
State v. Hussein. , 229 P.3d 313 (Haw. 2010).
“The statute’s plain language confirms this, stating that “a party may seek review of the [ICA’s] decision and judgment or dismissal order only by application .”
In the Interest of Doe, 20 P.3d 616 (Haw. 2001).
“Certiorari From The Intermediate Court Of Appeals Appeals from the ICA are governed by HRS § 602-59(b) (1993), which prescribes that an application for writ of certiorari shall tersely state its grounds which must include (1) grave errors of law or of fact, or (2) obvious…”
State v. Eberly, 112 P.3d 725 (Haw. 2005).
“" We granted certiorari because the ICA's opinion is "inconsisten[t]," see HRS § 602-59(b) (1993), with State v. Locquiao, 100 Hawai`i 195, 58 P.”
State v. Murray, 169 P.3d 955 (Haw. 2007).
“NOTES [1] Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-59 (Supp.2006), a party may appeal the decision and judgment of the intermediate appellate court (the ICA) only by an application to this court for a writ of certiorari.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-59(b)(1993) — 2 cases
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-59(b)(2) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-59(b)(l) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-59(c) — 39 cases
Waltrip v. TS Enter., Inc., 398 P.3d 815 (Haw. 2016).
“” It can be further inferred from the legislature’s minimal discussion regarding the addition of the phrase “or dismissal order” that 9 Act 149 of the 2006 legislative session amended HRS § 602-59 to read as follows: “(a) After issuance of the intermediate appellate court’s…”
State v. Uchima., 464 P.3d 852 (Haw. 2020).
“HRS § 602-59 grants a party the right to petition this court for discretionary review of an ICA judgment or dismissal order by submitting an application for writ of certiorari no later than thirty days after the filing of the ICA’s judgment or dismissal order.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-59(d) — 3 cases
Waltrip v. TS Enter., Inc., 398 P.3d 815 (Haw. 2016).
“” It can be further inferred from the legislature’s minimal discussion regarding the addition of the phrase “or dismissal order” that 9 Act 149 of the 2006 legislative session amended HRS § 602-59 to read as follows: “(a) After issuance of the intermediate appellate court’s…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-59(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.