Law Journals and Reviews
The Judicial Improvements Act of 1990: Historic Changes in Federal Civil Procedure Aimed at Improving the Efficiency of Federal Courts and Reducing the Uncertainty and Cost Associated with Federal Litigation. 23 HBJ 41.
Hawaii's Thousand Friends v. Anderson: Standing to Challenge Governmental Actions. 12 UH L. Rev. 435.
Evolution of the Act of State Doctrine: W.S. Kirkpatrick Corp. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp. and Beyond. 13 UH L. Rev. 687.
Case Notes
Standing of various taxpayers to challenge alleged unconstitutionality of OHA programs. 741 F.2d 1169.
Case or controversy requirement satisfied by cloud on title created by litigation and language of court decisions. 753 F.2d 1468.
Native Hawaiian group had standing to bring injunctive action for violation of Admission Act. 764 F.2d 623.
Alleged past mistreatment of litigant, by itself, was insufficient to demonstrate likelihood of future deprivations for purposes of meeting case or controversy requirement. 961 F.2d 852.
Congress had power through "arising under" clause to enact alien tort statute. 978 F.2d 493.
District courts have original jurisdiction under Alien Tort Act for suit by alien for wrongful death, committed by military intelligence officials through torture prohibited by the law of nations. 25 F.3d 1467.
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not apply when action is against estate of an individual foreign official whose actions were outside the official's scope of authority. 25 F.3d 1467.
Plaintiff was without standing, where plaintiff sought to enjoin State and city and county of Honolulu from implementation or enforcement of any and all state statutes and city ordinances that might apply to the business that plaintiff claimed to be developing, involving a commercial boating activity on the Ala Wai canal. 57 F. Supp. 2d 1028.
Plaintiff requesting preliminary injunction, who argued that regulatory framework set forth in Revised Ordinances of Honolulu ยง29-15.1, et seq. (regarding publication dispensing racks in Waikiki special district), was unconstitutional had standing, where, among other things, plaintiff alleged an injury in fact, e.g., the loss of its First Amendment rights. 79 F. Supp. 2d 1186.
Statute authorizing search and seizure of psychiatrist's records inflicts "injury in fact" which satisfies case or controversy requirement. 481 F. Supp. 1028.
Case or controversy presented. 588 F. Supp. 889; 590 F. Supp. 778.
No standing to sue for price-fixing and monopoly since no showing that alleged price-fixing caused injury. 606 F. Supp. 584.
Whether liability coverage existed was case or controversy even before insured's liability determined. 608 F. Supp. 383.
No alienage jurisdiction where aliens on both sides of litigation. 778 F. Supp. 1535.
No case or controversy where plaintiffs not threatened with nor subject to application of Hawaii employment discrimination statute, chapter 378. 800 F. Supp. 882.
Plaintiff had no standing to bring Truth in Lending Act claims unless plaintiff could show claims were exempt from bankruptcy estate or abandoned by bankruptcy trustee. 949 F. Supp. 1447.
Plaintiff failed to meet constitutional and statutory standing requirements to bring action, where plaintiff, inter alia, did not have standing to bring suit pursuant to Administrative Procedures Act and National Environmental Policy Act, or to bring action under Administrative Procedures Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. 1 F. Supp. 2d 1088.
Requests for injunctive and declaratory relief rendered moot by the cessation of the disputed low-frequency active sonar research and the expiration of the subject permit. 14 F. Supp. 2d 1198.
Plaintiff did not have standing to bring lawsuit, where plaintiff asserted mishandling of annual social security trust funds from 1960-1996, by improperly allowing social security trust funds to be spent for deficit reduction. 37 F. Supp. 2d 1176.
Clause 2 did not grant original jurisdiction to U.S. Supreme Court in a case between a state and one of its own citizens; additionally, original jurisdiction did not lie in the U.S. Supreme Court because the instant case involved state penal statutes and was not civil in nature. 77 H. 222 (App.), 883 P.2d 644.