Young v. City and County of Honolulu
District Court, D. Hawaii
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS I-III OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS I AND III OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (3) DISMISSING REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS
J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 16, 1991, the Honolulu City Council (the “City Council”) enacted into law Chapter 38, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (“Chapter 38”), which allowed owners of long-term leasehold interests to convert them into fee interests through the City and County of…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- City of Chicago v. International College of SurgeonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- ILWU (HAWAII) EMPLOYERS GENERAL PENSION PLAN v. HOBAN E & C USA, INC.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2025
- ILWU (Hawaii) Employers General Pension Plan v. Hoban E & C USA, Inc.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2025