Legal Opinion

Alesna v. Rice

District Court, D. Hawaii

Decided February 25, 1947No. Civ. 769PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McLAUGHLIN, District Judge.

The plaintiffs bring this action under the Civil Rights Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(14), alleging upon four different grounds the deprivation under color of Territorial law of rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Upon application and in accord with 28 U.S.C.A. § 381, Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following § 723c, a restraining order was issued ex parte. An order to show cause was returnable upon the tenth day thereafter, and as the argument was not concluded the restraining order was extended under the rule…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Thornhill v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. Haguer v. Committee for Industrial OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  3. Ex Parte RoyallSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  4. United States v. HutchesonSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  5. Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (PR), Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. AckermanDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1949
  2. Kam Koon Wan v. EE Black, LimitedDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1948
  3. Hall v. Hawaiian Pineapple Co.District Court, D. Hawaii · 1947
  4. Alesna v. RiceDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API