Legal Opinion
Kumalae v. Kalauokalani
Hawaii Supreme Court
Decided July 1, 1919No. 1195; No. 1196Published
Reserved Questions from Circuit Judge, First Circuit. Hon. J. T. DeBolt, Judge.
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part 1
OPINION OF
2Concurring in part, dissenting in part · CokeCoke, C. J.
In all that has been said by my associates in reference to reserved questions numbered 3 and 4 I fully concur. The alternative Avrit of mandamus should be made peremptory. The petitioners Kumalae and Pacheco having received the highest number of votes were each entitled to receive from the respondent Kalauokalani, the city and county clerk, a certificate of election as supervisor of the City and County of Honolulu. The duties of the clerk are purely ministerial and are so plainly expressed in section 1686 R. L. 1915 that it would seem there should be no honest difference of opinion…
3Cases cited7 opinions
- Duncan Townsite Co. v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- People Ex Rel. Sherwood v. State Board of CanvassersNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- United States Ex Rel. Turner v. FisherSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Harris v. CooperHawaii Supreme Court · 1902
- Wachter v. McEvoyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.