Legal Opinion

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided September 2, 1983No. A-113PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.

Applicants,* the Hawaii Housing Authority, its commissioners and executive director, request that I stay or vacate an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The present application bears only tangentially on the merits of the underlying lawsuit, in which the Court of Appeals decided that the condemnation provisions of the Hawaii Land Reform Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. §516-1 et seq. (1976 and Supp. 1982), violated the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mid-*1324kiff v. Tom, 702 F. 2d 788 (CA9 1983).…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Steffel v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. Wooley v. MaynardSupreme Court of the United States · 1977

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Calderon v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. Larone Elijah v. Richard DunbarCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2023
  3. Thompson v. CalderonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
  4. Robbins v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003
  5. Philip R. Workman v. Ricky Bell, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000

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

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

Powered by the Exa API