Legal Opinion
Ancheta v. Watada
District Court, D. Hawaii
Decided January 30, 2001No. CIV.99-00521HG-LEKPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GILLMOR, District Judge.
Plaintiff filed suit in this Court claiming that the Code of Fair Campaign Practices (the “Code”) and the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission’s (the “Commission”) censure of him are unconstitutional abridgements of free speech. On June 15, 2000, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiffs Motion”). Defendants oppose the motion by contending that Plaintiff voluntarily obligated himself to the limitations of the Code and therefore waived any rights he now claims were abridged.
After careful…
2Cases cited55 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rickert v. State, Public Disclosure Com'nWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- Rickert v. Public Disclosure CommissionCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
- Rickert v. State, Public Disclosure Com'nCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
- Rickert v. Public Disclosure CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 2007