Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
West Hawaii Today, Inc. v. Honorable Judges
Citations: 3 Haw. App. 43; 641 P.2d 328; 1982 Haw. App. LEXIS 112Docket: NO. 7861
Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals; February 24, 1982; Hawaii; State Appellate Court
The court, led by Judge Burns, addressed a question concerning whether 'West Hawaii Today' qualifies as a newspaper of general circulation in the County of Hawaii, as per Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 507-43. The complaint was dismissed, deemed akin to an inappropriate petition for a writ of mandamus. Prior to this case, Circuit Judge Ernest Kubota had ruled that 'West Hawaii Today' did not meet the statutory definition of a newspaper of general circulation. The plaintiff sought to intervene in this ruling but was denied and chose not to appeal. Instead, the plaintiff sued Judges Kubota and Kimura in their official capacities, requesting a declaration that 'West Hawaii Today' is indeed a newspaper of general circulation. During an evidentiary hearing, the court found the question of law pertinent but concluded that granting the declaratory relief would not prevent future disputes or clarify the parties' rights. The court ordered the submission of proposed findings of fact from both parties and certified the question for the Supreme Court's consideration. On October 17, 1979, the court formalized its question regarding the newspaper's status based on the evidence presented. A stipulation was approved on February 19, 1980, confirming the earlier order. The court acknowledged the inadequacy of a case-by-case determination of a newspaper's circulation status and suggested that a systematic review process by an appropriate governmental authority should be established, asserting that the Intermediate Court of Appeals is not qualified for this role. The court disapproves of the plaintiff's method in seeking a binding determination from a temporary Third Circuit judge regarding the two defendant judges. The complaint is interpreted as a request for a writ of mandamus, which is deemed inappropriate since mandamus cannot issue from one court to another of equal jurisdiction. The lower court allowed the plaintiff to instead seek relief from the Intermediate Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Hawaii Supreme Court Rules, but the court denies this request, affirming that mandamus is not suitable here. Citing multiple precedents, the court concludes that mandamus cannot compel a judicial tribunal to render a specific judgment. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.