Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff , 467 U.S. 229 (1984), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state could use eminent domain to take land that was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners and redistribute it to the wider population of private residents.
Ultimately, Young instituted a federal habeas action. The court determined that the Community Protection Act was civil and, therefore, it could not violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto guarantees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the case turned on whether the Act was punitive "as applied" to Young. [4] 5th
The Hawaii State Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to answer questions of law that have been passed to it from trial courts or the federal court, hear civil cases submitted to the Supreme Court on agreed statements of facts, and decide questions coming from proceedings of writs of mandamus, prohibition, and habeas corpus. [3]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as ...
The state actor in that case would be the Hawaii court system. However, the brief also offers a federal basis for finding state action: Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's role in mortgages and ...
The Hawaii Supreme Court filed an opinion Thursday that found the Schweitzer brothers, whose convictions were overturned by the Circuit Court in the infamous 1991 murder and rape of Dana Ireland ...
Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the right to die.It ruled 9–0 that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great pain, was a legitimate state interest that was well within the authority of the state ...