Legal Opinion
Paterson v. Rush
Hawaii Supreme Court
Decided February 6, 1939No. 2354PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OP THE COURT BY
PETERS, J.
Mandamus was brought by the petitioners to compel the city and county engineer of the City and County of Honolulu to issue to them a permit to lower ten linear feet of concrete curbing on Kuhio Avenue, Honolulu, in front of and directly opposite an alley, known as “alley U” and being the same premises described in land court certificate of title number 13060, issued to the City and County of Honolulu. After a hearing on the merits, the circuit judge quashed the alternative writ. From the order to that effect, the petitioners appealed.
The only questions…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Tietjen v. MeldrimSupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
- Matter of City of N.Y. (Northern Blvd.)New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Danielson v. SykesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Merrill Railway & Lighting Co. v. City of MerrillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Gerstley v. Globe Wernicke Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1930
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Waterhouse v. Capital Investment Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1960
- Neary v. MartinHawaii Supreme Court · 1977
- Re Land Title, YamaguchiHawaii Supreme Court · 1952
- Henmi Apartments, Inc. v. SawyerHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1982
- In re YamaguchiHawaii Supreme Court · 1952