MON CHI HEUNG AU, AKA HEIDI HEUNG, AND ARLENE L. GILLESPIE, FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLEES,
v.
THE HONORABLE HERMAN T. F. LUM AND WAYNE Y. KANAGAWA, APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The judgment of the District Court holding Hawaii's durational residency requirements for divorce unconstitutional is reversed.
A three-judge court held Hawaii's durational residency requirements for divorce unconstitutional. The state required one year of state domicile and th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Durational Residency Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from a declaratory judgment, issued by a three-judge court convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284, holding unconstitutional the durational residency requirements of the Hawaii divorce statute, .Hawaii Rev.Stat. § 580-1. 360 F.Supp. 219 (D.Hawaii 1973). Since the District Court’s order neither grants nor denies injunctive relief, our court has jurisdiction of the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1253. Mitchell v. Donovan, 398 U.S. 427, 430-32, 90 S.Ct. 1763, 26 L.Ed.2d 378 (1970); Rockefeller v. Catholic Medical Center, 397 U.S. 820, 90 S.Ct. 1517, 25 L.Ed.2d 806 (1970).
The Hawaii statute requires that a person applying for a divorce be a domiciliary of the state for one year and of a judicial circuit within the state for three months. The District Court held that those requirements violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Submission of this appeal having heretofore been deferred, we now order the cause submitted for disposition.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s very recent opinion in Sosna v. Iowa, - U.S. -, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975), the judgment of the District Court must be, and it hereby is,
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stypmann v. The City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco, 557 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
Mendez v. Hon. Louis B. Heller, 530 F.2d 457 (2d Cir. 1976)
Authorities Cited
- Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1975)
- Mitchell v. Donovan, 398 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1970)
- Rockefeller v. Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc., 397 U.S. 820 (U.S. 1970)