From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vimahi v. Blondin

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Apr 21, 2009
No. 29745 (Haw. Apr. 21, 2009)

Opinion

No. 29745

April 21, 2009.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 08-1-1788)

By: MOON, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, and DUFFY, JJ. and Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge LEONARD, assigned by reason of vacancy.


ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of prohibition filed by petitioners Natasha Anela Vimahi and Luseane Eniti Vimahi and the papers in support, it appears that the granting and entry of a writ of ejectment is immediately appealable pursuant to HRS § 641-1(a) (Supp. 2008). See Penn v. Transportation Lease Haw., Ltd., 2 Haw. App. 272, 274, 630 P.2d 646, 649 (1981); Ciesla v. Reddish, 78 Hawai'i 18, 889 P.2d 702 (1995). Petitioners can appeal from a writ of ejectment and can seek a stay of the writ pending appeal pursuant to HRAP 8. Thus, petitioners are not entitled to extraordinary relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of prohibition 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 writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures.). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of prohibition is denied.


Summaries of

Vimahi v. Blondin

Supreme Court of Hawaii
Apr 21, 2009
No. 29745 (Haw. Apr. 21, 2009)
Case details for

Vimahi v. Blondin

Case Details

Full title:NATASHA ANELA VIMAHI and LUSEANE ENITI VIMAHI, Petitioners, v. THE…

Court:Supreme Court of Hawaii

Date published: Apr 21, 2009

Citations

No. 29745 (Haw. Apr. 21, 2009)