Legal Opinion
Day v. Apoliona
District Court, D. Hawaii
Decided August 10, 2006No. Civ. 05-00649 SOM/BMKPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
MOLLWAY, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND FACTS.
This case involves a challenge to the manner in which the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (“OHA”) has been and is spending money. Plaintiffs Virgil E. Day, Mel Hoo-manawanui, Josiah L. Hoohuli, Patrick L. Kahawaiolaa, and Samuel L. Kealoha, Jr., (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) claim to be “native Hawaiians,” as that term is defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (“HHCA”), 42 Stat. 108 (1921). 1 First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) ¶ 4.
Hawaii became a state via the Admission Act, P.L. 86-3 (March 18, 1959),…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- City of Chicago v. International College of SurgeonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Cort v. AshSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Gonzaga University v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Barber v. RitterColorado Court of Appeals · 2007
- Kealoha v. Machado.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2013
- Barber v. RitterColorado Court of Appeals · 2007