KITV-4 v. Hirai
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 24403 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________ KITV-4 and the HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COLLEEN HIRAI, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I; TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES CAMPBELL, DECEASED; BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES CAMPBELL, DECEASED; AND, ASHFORD & WRISTON, A LAW PARTNERSHIP, Respondents. _________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (Equity No. 2388) ORDER (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Upon consideration of Petitioners KITV-4 and Honolulu Star Bulletin s petition for writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that: (1) Petitioners are seeking review of an order denying a motion to intervene entered in In the Estate of James Campbell, Equity No. 2388; (2) An order denying a motion to intervene is an appealable order. See Baehr v. Miike, 80 Hawai#i 341, 910 P.2d 112 (1996); Ing v. Acceptance Ins. Co., 76 Hawai#i 266, 874 P.2d 1091 (1994); Takayama v. Financial Sec. Ins. Co., 79 Hawai#i 98, 898 P.2d 610 (App. 1995); Kim v. H.V. Corp., 5 Haw. App. 298, 688 P.2d 1158 (1984); and (3) A petition for a writ of mandamus is not intended to take the place of an appeal. Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-205, 982 P.2d 334, 338-339 (1998). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice to any remedy Petitioners may have by way of appeal. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 20, 2001. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
