Public Defender Service Corp. v. Bordallo

Superior Court of Guam

Public Defender Service Corp. v. Bordallo

2 Guam 78

CourtSuperior Court of Guam

DecidedMarch 30, 1977

DocketCivil No. 642-76

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Guam 78 (Public Defender Service Corp. v. Bordallo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Guam primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Public Defender Service Corp. v. Bordallo, 2 Guam 78 (superctguam 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

BENSON, Judge

JUDGMENT

Having this day issued an opinion in this matter, the Court hereby orders that Respondent Director of Administration immediately release to Petitioner Public Defender Service Corporation the total amount which was held in reserve by Respondents in allocating funds to Petitioner over the course of Fiscal Year 1977, said amount being 20% (twenty per cent) of Petitioner's Budget Appropriation and equaling $68,913.00 (Sixty-Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Thirteen Dollars).

There being no showing that injunctive relief is necessary to enforce Petitioner's rights, and there having been no prayer for preliminary injunction when parties appeared before the Court on August 12, 1976, no injunctive relief is ordered. As the issue was raised by the pleadings, Petitioner has leave to renew its claim.

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

BENSON, Judge

JUDGMENT

Having this day issued an opinion in this matter, the Court hereby orders that Respondent Director of Administration immediately release to Petitioner Public Defender Service Corporation the total amount which was held in reserve by Respondents in allocating funds to Petitioner over the course of Fiscal Year 1977, said amount being 20% (twenty per cent) of Petitioner's Budget Appropriation and equaling $68,913.00 (Sixty-Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Thirteen Dollars).

There being no showing that injunctive relief is necessary to enforce Petitioner's rights, and there having been no prayer for preliminary injunction when parties appeared before the Court on August 12, 1976, no injunctive relief is ordered. As the issue was raised by the pleadings, Petitioner has leave to renew its claim.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Guam 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/public-defender-service-corp-v-bordallo-superctguam-1977.