Mon Chi Heung Au, Aka Heidi Heung v. The Honorable Herman T. F. Lum And Wayne Y. Kanagawa

Ninth Circuit

Mon Chi Heung Au, Aka Heidi Heung v. The Honorable Herman T. F. Lum And Wayne Y. Kanagawa

512 F.2d 430, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16248

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 1975

Docket73-2654

StatusPublished

This text of 512 F.2d 430 (Mon Chi Heung Au, Aka Heidi Heung v. The Honorable Herman T. F. Lum And Wayne Y. Kanagawa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mon Chi Heung Au, Aka Heidi Heung v. The Honorable Herman T. F. Lum And Wayne Y. Kanagawa, 512 F.2d 430, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16248 (9th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

512 F.2d 430

MON CHI HEUNG AU, aka Heidi Heung, and Arlene L. Gillespie,
for themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellees,
v.
The Honorable Herman T. F. LUM and Wayne Y. Kanagawa, Appellants.

No. 73-2654.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1975.

Peter J. Levinson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellants.

Ian L. Mattoch, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellees.

Before ELY and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and LANE,* Judge, U.S. Court of Customs & Patent Appeals.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from a declaratory judgment, issued by a three-judge court convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284, holding unconstitutional the durational residency requirements of the Hawaii divorce statute, Hawaii Rev.Stat. § 580-1. 360 F.Supp. 219 (D.Hawaii 1973). Since the District Court's order neither grants nor denies injunctive relief, our court has jurisdiction of the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1253. Mitchell v. Donovan, 398 U.S. 427, 430-32, 90 S.Ct. 1763, 26 L.Ed.2d 378 (1970); Rockefeller v. Catholic Medical Center, 397 U.S. 820, 90 S.Ct. 1517, 25 L.Ed.2d 806 (1970).

The Hawaii statute requires that a person applying for a divorce be a domiciliary of the state for one year and of a judicial circuit within the state for three months. The District Court held that those requirements violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Submission of this appeal having heretofore been deferred, we now order the cause submitted for disposition.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court's very recent opinion in Sosna v. Iowa,--- U.S. ----, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975), the judgment of the District Court must be, and it hereby is,

Reversed.

*

Honorable Donald E. Lane, Judge, United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Washington, D. C., sitting by designation

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

512 F.2d 430

MON CHI HEUNG AU, aka Heidi Heung, and Arlene L. Gillespie,
for themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellees,
v.
The Honorable Herman T. F. LUM and Wayne Y. Kanagawa, Appellants.

No. 73-2654.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1975.

Peter J. Levinson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellants.

Ian L. Mattoch, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellees.

Before ELY and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and LANE,* Judge, U.S. Court of Customs & Patent Appeals.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from a declaratory judgment, issued by a three-judge court convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284, holding unconstitutional the durational residency requirements of the Hawaii divorce statute, Hawaii Rev.Stat. § 580-1. 360 F.Supp. 219 (D.Hawaii 1973). Since the District Court's order neither grants nor denies injunctive relief, our court has jurisdiction of the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1253. Mitchell v. Donovan, 398 U.S. 427, 430-32, 90 S.Ct. 1763, 26 L.Ed.2d 378 (1970); Rockefeller v. Catholic Medical Center, 397 U.S. 820, 90 S.Ct. 1517, 25 L.Ed.2d 806 (1970).

The Hawaii statute requires that a person applying for a divorce be a domiciliary of the state for one year and of a judicial circuit within the state for three months. The District Court held that those requirements violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Submission of this appeal having heretofore been deferred, we now order the cause submitted for disposition.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court's very recent opinion in Sosna v. Iowa,--- U.S. ----, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975), the judgment of the District Court must be, and it hereby is,

Reversed.

*

Honorable Donald E. Lane, Judge, United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Washington, D. C., sitting by designation

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

512 F.2d 430, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mon-chi-heung-au-aka-heidi-heung-v-the-honorable-herman-t-f-lum-and-ca9-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack