Opinion ID: 2506328
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Supreme Court's Order

Text: The City Clerk argues that the Hawai`i Supreme Court's September 3, 2008 order denying Stop Rail's Petition for Writ of Mandamus is persuasive authority to deny the ICA Motion. However, the supreme court's order simply stated: [W]e conclude that Petitioners have not demonstrated that they are entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai`i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (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 adequately address the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). Thus, we do not know whether the supreme court's ruling rested on the first part of the Kema test (failure to demonstrate right to relief), or the second part of the test (failure to demonstrate lack of alternative means to obtain relief), or both. Accordingly, it is possible that the supreme court denied the petition simply because it found that Stop Rail had an alternative means to obtain relief because Stop Rail could appeal to this court. That clearly would not be a basis for giving the supreme court's order preclusive effect here. Accordingly, we reject the City Clerk's argument.