Marn v. Ashford

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000756 04-JAN-2021 01:31 PM Dkt. 13 ODDP SCPW-20-0000756 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________ ALEXANDER Y. MARN, as Trustee of the Revocable Living Trust Agreement of Alexander Y. Marn, and ALEXANDER Y. MARN, an individual, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JAMES H. ASHFORD, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai‘i, Respondent Judge. _________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 98-5371-12) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Alexander Y. Marn’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on December 14, 2020, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested extraordinary writ. 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 redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; such a writ is meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court who has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in which he or she has a legal duty to act). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motion is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 4, 2021. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins 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.