Legal Opinion
De Mello v. Auditor City County
Hawaii Supreme Court
Decided December 7, 1946No. 2627PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OP THE COURT BY
LE BARON, J. (Circuit Judge Cassidy dissenting.)
The petitioner, John De Mello, Jr., brought mandamus proceedings to compel the respondent, the auditor of the city and county of Honolulu, to draw a warrant pursuant to Act 46 of Session Laws of Hawaii 1945, which over the veto of the governor became effective on April 25, 1945. The pertinent part of this Act reads: “The treasurer of the city and county of Honolulu is hereby authorized and directed to pay upon a warrant drawn by the auditor of the city and county of Honolulu, the sum of six thousand and no/100 dollars…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Pope v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United States v. Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co. v. SiegelSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Radice v. People of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Standard Oil Co. v. City of MarysvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Koike v. Board of Water SupplyHawaii Supreme Court · 1960
- James W. Glover, Ltd. v. FongHawaii Supreme Court · 1952
- De Mello v. FongCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1947