TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kazuhisa Abe v. John F. Dyer

Kazuhisa ABE Et Al., Appellants, v. John F. DYER, Appellee

Kazuhisa Abe v. Dyer, 256 F.2d 728 (9th Cir. 1958)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 10, 1958
Docket
No. 15566_1
Judges
Denman, Pope, Fee
Citations
256 F.2d 7281958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4400

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Abe, and the other members save two of the Hawaiian Legislature, appeal from a declaratory decree of the District Court holding that appellee Dyer, plaintiff below, had been deprived of his liberty and property without due process of law and equal protection of the law.

1

The contention below was that the appellants had failed since 1900 to reapportion the Senate and the House Districts as required by Section 55 of the Hawaiian Organic Act, thereby diminishing ap-pellee’s voting power and his district’s relative strength in the Hawaiian Legislature since his District has experienced a larger increase in population since the original apportionment than have other Districts. Dyer has stipulated in this court that he waives all damages for the harm claimed.

The District Court had orally announced its opinion that it would order a reapportionment or in the alternative an election at large when Congress amended Section 55 of the Organic Act (Public Law 895, 84th Congress, 2d Session; 48 U.S.C.A. § 562 ) and itself ordered reapportionment of the senatorial and representative districts. This amendment, of course, made Dyer’s controversy over reapportionment moot. Nevertheless the District Court entered a declaratory decree for Dyer recognizing and adjudicating the deprivation of his rights during the period prior to the amendment of Section 55. Since the sole purpose for such a decree was to afford Dyer a ground for the damages he now does not seek we reverse it and order the District Court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

1

. The decree was predicated on the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1483 .

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1960: 21961: 11962: 21966: 21970: 11973: 11979: 11996: 12023: 119602026peak 1960 · 2

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