Opinion
25140
June 27, 2002.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
LEVINSON, ACTING C.J., ACOBA, J.; and CIRCUIT JUDGE MASUOKA, IN PLACE OF MOON, C.J., RECUSED; INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS CHIEF JUDGE BURNS, IN PLACE OF NAKAYAMA, J., RECUSED; and INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE WATANABE, IN PLACE OF RAMIL, J., RECUSED
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus directed to a public officer and the papers in support, it appears that a petition for writ of mandamus is not the appropriate method to obtain review of the controversy between the parties. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice to the filing of any appropriate action for relief, including: (1) an agreed statement of facts pursuant to HRS § 602-5(3) and HRAP Rule 18; or (2) a declaratory judgment action pursuant to HRS § 632-1.