From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cawthon v. Ching

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Oct 19, 2009
No. 30086 (Haw. Oct. 19, 2009)

Opinion

No. 30086

October 19, 2009.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

By: MOON, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, DUFFY, and RECKTENWALD, JJ.


ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by petitioners Debbie L. Cawthon and Ronald D. Cawthon and the papers in support, it appears that the furnishing of medical care and the payment of benefits under HRS Chapter 386 are not ministerial duties of the respondents. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to mandamus relief. See HRS § 602-5(3) (Supp. 2008) (The supreme court has jurisdiction and power to issue writs of mandamus directed to public officers to compel them to fulfill the duties of their offices.); In Re Disciplinary Bd. Of Hawaii Supreme Court, 91 Hawai'i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (1999) (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 Hawai'i 273, 274 n. 3, 874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n. 3 (1994) ("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 ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.


Summaries of

Cawthon v. Ching

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Oct 19, 2009
No. 30086 (Haw. Oct. 19, 2009)
Case details for

Cawthon v. Ching

Case Details

Full title:DEBBIE L. CAWTHON and RONALD D. CAWTHON, Petitioners, v. DARWIN CHING…

Court:Supreme Court of Hawaii

Date published: Oct 19, 2009

Citations

No. 30086 (Haw. Oct. 19, 2009)