Hawaii Supreme Court, 2015

Cullen v. Currier

Hawaii Supreme Court · Decided May 27, 2015

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000450 27-MAY-2015 10:16 AM

SCWC-12-0000450

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

PAUL K. CULLEN aka PAUL KAUKA NAKI, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.

LAVINIA CURRIER and PUU O HOKU RANCH, LTD., Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-12-0000450; DC-CIVIL NO. 11-1-3105) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration filed on May 1, 2015 by Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant Paul K. Cullen aka Paul Kauka Naki, and the records and files herein, we find that this court lacks appellate jurisdiction. Pursuant to Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-59(c) (Supp. 2011), “[a]n 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” unless a thirty-day extension is requested in writing.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.1

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 27, 2015.

Paul K. Cullen aka /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald Paul Kauka Naki, petitioner pro se /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

1 Notwithstanding the denial of the motion for reconsideration, Petitioner’s application for writ of certiorari fails to demonstrate “grave errors of law or of fact” or “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.” HRS § 602-59(b(1)-(2) (Supp. 2014).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.