Legal Opinion
Greenside v. Ariyoshi
District Court, D. Hawaii
Decided November 25, 1981No. Civ. 80-0618PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
HEEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees arises from his action seeking a declaratory judgment that Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 514E-11(1), as it existed at the time, relating to time-sharing plans, 1 was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The action also sought an injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 2 against enforcement of the statute under color of State law.
The disputed section of the law would have prohibited agents of time-share units or plans from soliciting…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Maher v. GagneSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State PrisonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1978
- Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Nelson A. RockefellerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- Morrison v. AyoobCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Cooper v. DupnikCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- California Common Cause v. DuffyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Kreutzer v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. Philadelphia Housing AuthorityDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- EWAP, INC. v. City of OntarioCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.