HAYAKAWA ET AL.
v.
BROWN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
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 application for a stay of the California Supreme Court's denial of mandamus and for an order restraining state officials is denied.
A candidate for the Republican Senate ticket was denied the ability to file nomination papers due to a state law prohibiting party switching within 12…
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 Stay Pending Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
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 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1974)…Mr. Justice Douglas, agreeing with Part I-A of this opinion, dissents from a reversal of the judgment below as he cannot say that it does not rest on an independent state ground. See Hayakawa v. Brown, 415 U. S. 1304 (Douglas, J., in chambers).…
-
Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1986)…her adequate remedy is available. Piledrivers’ Local Union No. 2375 v. Smith, 695 F. 2d 390, 392 (9th Cir.1982). B. Standard of Review. The extraordinary remedy of mandamus traditionally lies within the trial court’s discretion. Hayakawa v. Brown, 415 U.S. 1304, 1305, 94 S.Ct. 1145, 1145, 39 L.Ed.2d 457 (Douglas, Circuit Justice 1974). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on clearly erroneous factual findings or an incorrect legal standard. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ca…
-
Arnold v. BLaST Intermediate Unit 17 & Dr. Robert M. Mitstifer. Appeal of Mary Jane Arnold, 843 F.2d 122 (3d Cir. 1988)…entities); 24 Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 24, § 6-611 (Purdon 1962) (provides for enforcement of judgments against school districts by mandamus execution). We must review the district court’s denial of the writ for an abuse of discretion. Hayakawa v. Brown, 415 U.S. 1304, 1305, 94 S.Ct. 1145, 39 L.Ed.2d 457 (1974). A refusal to grant the writ may be reversed if it is based on clearly erroneous factual findings or an incorrect legal standard. Lal v. Brooks, 98 Pa.Comm. 380, 511 A. 2d 277, 279 (1986); Fallini v. Hodel…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence