Mon Chi Heung Au v. Lum

Ninth Circuit

Mon Chi Heung Au v. Lum

512 F.2d 430

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 1975

DocketNo. 73-2654

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 512 F.2d 430 (Mon Chi Heung Au v. Lum) 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 v. Lum, 512 F.2d 430 (9th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

512 F.2d 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mon-chi-heung-au-v-lum-ca9-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack