§602-59 Review of decision of the intermediate appellate court, certiorari.

683 words·~3 min read·/hi/chapter-602/602-59

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

(a)After issuance of the intermediate appellate court's judgment or dismissal order, a party may seek review of the intermediate appellate court's decision and judgment or dismissal order only by application to the supreme court for a writ of certiorari, the acceptance or rejection of which shall be discretionary upon the supreme court.

(b)The application for writ of certiorari shall tersely state its grounds, which shall include:

(1)Grave errors of law or of fact; or

(2)Obvious inconsistencies in the decision of the intermediate appellate court with that of the supreme court, federal decisions, or its own decision,

and the magnitude of those errors or inconsistencies dictating the need for further appeal.

(c)An application for a writ of certiorari may be filed with the supreme court no later than thirty days after the filing of the judgment or dismissal order of the intermediate appellate court. Upon a written request filed prior to the expiration of the thirty-day period, a party may extend the time for filing an application for a writ of certiorari for no more than an additional thirty days. A response to an application for a writ of certiorari may be filed no later than fifteen days after the application is filed. Upon a timely written request by a party, the clerk of the court shall grant one extension of time for no more than fifteen days for filing a response to an application for a writ of certiorari. The clerk of the court shall note on the record that the extension was granted. The clerk of the court shall give notice that the request is timely and granted. A request is timely only if it is received by the clerk of the court within the original time for filing of the response. The supreme court shall determine to accept the application within thirty days after a response is or could have been filed. The failure of the supreme court to accept within thirty days shall constitute a rejection of the application.

(d)Upon the acceptance of the application, the clerk shall forward the complete file of the case to the supreme court. Supplemental briefs shall be accepted from the parties only upon the request of the supreme court. [L 1979, c 111, pt of §3; am L 1997, c 24, §1; am L 2004, c 202, §59; am L 2006, c 94, §1 and c 149, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1; am L 2011, c 77, §1; am L 2017, c 112, §1]

Note

Applicability of 2011 amendment. L 2011, c 77, §3.

Applicability of subsection

(c)to cases in which the intermediate appellate court's judgment or dismissal order was filed before July 10, 2017. L 2017, c 112, §3.

Rules of Court

Writ of certiorari, see HRAP rule 40.1.

Law Journals and Reviews

The Development of Hawai`i's Appellate Courts: An Organizational Perspective. 33 UH L. Rev. 875 (2011).

Case Notes

Where appellate court's amended order denying reconsideration corrected only clerical errors and did not materially alter rights or obligations, entry of amended order did not extend time within which petitioner was required to file application for certiorari under subsection

(c)and HRAP rule 40.1(a); petitioner's application for certiorari was thus untimely. 94 H. 297, 12 P.3d 1238 (2000).

Where summary disposition order of the intermediate court of appeals contained no grave errors of law or fact and was not obviously inconsistent with the appellate case law of this State, defendant's application for writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. 101 H. 127, 63 P.3d 1097 (2002).

The Hawaii supreme court had jurisdiction pursuant to subsection

(a)to consider various procedural issues implicated by pro se proceedings before the labor and industrial relations appeals board and the intermediate court of appeals

(ICA)because the addition of the phrase "or dismissal order" to subsection

(a)clarified that an application for writ of certiorari may be filed after the ICA issues a dispositional order that may not be a "judgment". 140 H. 226, 398 P.3d 815 (2016).