TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

HAYAKAWA v. BROWN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Dr. S. I. Hayakawa v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Secretary of State of California No. A—839

Hayakawa v. Brown, Sec'y of State of Cal., 415 U.S. 1304 (1974)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 4, 1974
Docket
No. A-839
Judges
Douglas
Citations
415 U.S. 130494 S. Ct. 114539 L. Ed. 2d 4571974 U.S. LEXIS 1026
Cited by 6 Original from court

Opinion — Douglas

Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.

Hayakawa desires to run for the Senate from California on the Republican ticket. He has until March 8, 1974, to file. When the County Clerk and Secretary of State refused to accept his papers, he petitioned California’s Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. That court on a 4-to-3 vote denied it, no opinion being written. Hayakawa plans to apply for certiorari here from that denial and meanwhile wants me to stay the order of the California Supreme Court denying mkndamus, pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari here. His application also requests me to restrain the state officials from refusing to accept his nomination papers.

The barrier confronting the state officials is § 6401 of the California Election Code which prohibits a candidate from being a candidate of one party when he has within 12 months been registered with another party. Cases raising the constitutionality of provisions of that character are before the Court and not yet decided in No. 72-812, Storer v. Brown, and No. 72-6050, Frommhagen v. Brown.

It would seem at first blush that the present *1305 case, being of the same kind as Storer and Frommhagen, should be considered along with them.

The difficulty is that I have no way of knowing whether denial of the writ of mandamus rested on an independent state ground. That is an extraordinary writ, the issuance of which is traditionally discretionary. It may be that one acquainted with the labyrinth of California procedure would see the answer more clearly than I do. Yet the federal question — our only fulcrum in the case — has not yet surfaced in the litigation, as denial of mandamus, without more, may conceal a number of independent state grounds.

Application denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1974: 11980: 11981: 11986: 11988: 12000: 119742026peak 1974 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. National Wildlife Federation v. The United States of America626 F.2d 917 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
  2. Fallini v. Hodel783 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1986)
  3. Marcano v. Apfel112 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D.P.R. 2000)
  4. Arnold v. Bl Intermediate Unit 17843 F.2d 122 (3d Cir. 1988)
  5. Richardson v. Ramirez418 U.S. 24 (1974)
  6. In re 36'Uniflite," Pioneer I," Reg. No. FL 7894 AH398 So. 2d 457 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Most recent

  1. Marcano v. Apfel112 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D.P.R. 2000)
  2. Arnold v. Bl Intermediate Unit 17843 F.2d 122 (3d Cir. 1988)
  3. Fallini v. Hodel783 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1986)
  4. In re 36'Uniflite," Pioneer I," Reg. No. FL 7894 AH398 So. 2d 457 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
  5. National Wildlife Federation v. The United States of America626 F.2d 917 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
  6. Richardson v. Ramirez418 U.S. 24 (1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list