740 F2d 15 Midkiff v. A Tom K T Nc It C Yk "H" I

740 F.2d 15

Frank E. MIDKIFF, Richard Lyman, Jr., Hung Wo Ching, Matsuo
Takabuki and Myron B. Thompson, Trustees of the
Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate,
Plaintiffs- Appellants,
v.
Paul A. TOM, Tony Taniguchi, Wilbert K. Eguchi, Wayne T.
Takahashi, Lawrence N.C. Ing, Nobuyoshi Tamura, Andrew I.T.
Chang, and David C. Slipher, Commissioners of the Hawaii
Housing Authority; Franklin Y.K. Sunn, Executive Director
of the Hawaii Housing Authority; and Hawaii Housing
Authority, Defendants-Appellees,
and
Wai-Kahala Tract "H" Association, Inc.; Halawa Hills
Landsale Committee; Awakea Association; Alii Shores
Community Association; Enchanted Hills, Unit I; Portlock
Community Association (Maunalua Beach); Kokohead Community
Lease- Fee, Inc.; West Marina Community Association;
Kalama Valley Community Association; Maunalua Triangle-Koko
Kai Community Association, Inc.; Hahahione Valley Community
Association, Inc.; Kamiloiki Community Association;
Lunalilo Marina Community Association; Mariners Ridge and
Cove Fee/Lease Conversion Committee; Spinnaker Isle
Association; Waialae Iki Community Association; Waiau
Community Association; Kahala Community Association, Inc.;
Kahala Community Fee Purchase Fund and Halawa Valley Estates
Fee Conversion Corporation, Intervenors-Appellees.

No. 80-4368.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 21, 1981.
Decided Aug. 9, 1984.

Clinton R. Ashford, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiffs-appellants.

A. Bernard Bays, William E. Atwater, Dennis E.W. O'Connor, John A. Roney, Stubenberg, Roney, Hartnett, Lawhn, Fong & Kuwaski, Michael A. Lilly, Atty. Gen., Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, Samuel P. King, Judge.

Before ALARCON, POOLE and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER


Advertisement
view counter
1

By its decision of May 30, 1984, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Hawaii Housing Authority, et al v. Midkiff, et al., --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984), reversed the decision of this court reported at 702 F.2d 788 and 725 F.2d 502. Accordingly, we vacate our decisions and remand to the district court for proceedings not inconsistent with the decision of the United States Supreme Court.

2

It is so ordered.