District Court for the District of Guam Court Cases

Search
  1. Laguana v. Ansell (1952)

    Mastin G. White, Solicitor, Department of Interior, Irwin W. Silverman, Chief Counsel, Office of Territories, Department of Interior, Washington, D. C., Ellis N. Slack, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., I. Henry Kutz, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., James G. Mackey, U. S. Atty., for District of Guam, Agana, Guam (Shirley Ecker Boskey, Atty., Dept of Interior, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for defendant-intervener United States.


    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Civ. No. 31-51
  2. Thirteenth Guam Legislature v. Bordallo (1977)

    The Guamanian Legislature and several citizens employed by the government brought this suit for declaratory and injunctive relief to challenge the manner in which the Governor of Guam has applied his item veto power to the budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1977 (FY 1977). They contend that the Governor exceeded his executive function and assumed a creative role properly reserved to the Legislature by (1) in effect providing for nine government agencies for FY 1977 the budgetary sums [...]

    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Civ. No. 76-038 WHO
  3. People of Territory of Guam v. Olsen (1978)

    Defendant Olsen was convicted in that court on September 11, 1975, of burglary in the second degree (2 counts), assault with a deadly weapon (1 count), and receiving stolen property (1 count). Sentence was pronounced on October 28, 1975. Concurrent sentences were imposed as follows: for each of the burglaries, 8 years; for the assault, 10 years; and for receiving stolen property, 2 years. A notice of appeal was filed the same day.


    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Crim. No. 84F-75 (Undocketed)
  4. Abuan v. General Elec. Co. (1990)

    This is a class action suit involving 189 named plaintiffs who claim injury due to exposure to an allegedly toxic chemical manufactured by defendant Monsanto. Plaintiffs assert four causes of action against Monsanto: negligence and outrageous conduct, strict liability, breach of warranty and civil conspiracy. Presently, Monsanto moves the Court to dismiss the Complaint against it under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). Monsanto claims that it does not have the sufficient minimum contacts with the forum to [...]

    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: CV 90-0031
  5. Wilson v. Kennedy (1954)

    This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction, and summary judgment as a matter of law filed by the defendants. The plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment. There are in the record briefs, requests for admissions of fact, objections and answers to such requests for admissions of fact, but in the view of the court the basic issues are clear and any detailed discussion will tend to complicate rather than clarify the [...]

    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Civ. No. 27-54
  6. Duty Free Shoppers, Ltd. v. Tax Com'r (1979)

    In this opinion, we reverse a summary judgment of the trial court which held unconstitutional the Guam gross receipts tax as applied to a taxpayer who sells and delivers liquor and tobacco products to departing passengers at the Guam International Airport. While holding that both the Import-Export and Commerce Clauses of the U. S. Constitution apply in Guam, we hold that neither clause is violated on the facts before us.


    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: C 1023-75
  7. United States v. Angcog (1961)

    An information was filed against the defendant in this Court on August 23, 1960. It contained three counts: Count One: violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; Count Two: violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2152; and Count Three: violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2199. The defendant has pleaded "guilty" to Count One and Count Three but "not guilty" to Count Two. The following is the complete text of Count Two as it appears in the information:


    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Crim. No. 46-60
  8. Concepcion v. United States (1974)

    This cause came on regularly for trial on the 17th day of December 1973. Ensuing the presentation of testimony of witnesses for plaintiffs, plaintiffs stated to the court that their only remaining witness, the police officer who investigated the accident, could not be present to testify because he was then confined as a patient at the hospital.


    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Civ. No. 52-72
  9. Mailloux v. Mailloux (1975)

    Plaintiff filed her complaint in this Court and bases jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant Chase Manhattan Bank filed a motion to dismiss, challenging this Court's jurisdiction over diversity actions.


    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Civ. No. 75-034
  10. Guam Soc. of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. Ada (1990)

    THIS MATTER came before the Court on August 7, 1990, for hearing of the following motions: Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction; plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983; defendant Governor Ada's motion to dismiss; defendant Governor Ada's motion for partial summary judgment; and, defendant Attorney General Barrett-Anderson's motion to dismiss.


    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Civ. No. 90-00013
  11. United States v. Suarez (1994)

    Defendant was convicted, after trial by jury, of a violation of the Clean Water Act, for having illegally discharged fill material into wetlands without a permit. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1319(c)(2)(A). He has now moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside his conviction and sentence.[1] The motion has heretofore been briefed and submitted for decision. Neither party contends that an evidentiary hearing is needed to resolve any matter in issue on the motion.


    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: CR 92-036 AWT
  12. Government of Guam v. Kaanehe (1956)

    The defendant is a resident of Guam. He was charged with failure to file an income tax return for 1953. This was alleged to be in violation of Sec. 145(a), Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 53 Stat. 62, 26 U.S.C. § 145(a) (1945 Edition),[1] made applicable to Guam by Sec. 31 of the Organic Act of Guam, 64 Stat. 392, 48 U.S.C.A. § 1421i.[2] The action was brought before the Island Court of Guam. The charge was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Cr. No. 6-A
  13. Mobil Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Blaz (1975)

    Mobil Petroleum Company, Inc., Petitioner-Appellee-Appellant, hereinafter called Mobil, sought review of an assessment of gross receipts taxes of $32,749.20 and for a refund of the payment of gross receipts taxes of $82,969.42 with interest. The assessment was made by and payment of taxes was made to Joaquin G. Blaz, Commissioner of Revenue and Taxation, Government of Guam, Respondent-Appellant, hereinafter called Commissioner. On January 5, 1971 the Commissioner assessed gross receipts taxes [...]

    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Civ. Appeal No. 88-A
  14. Abrams v. Playle (1976)

    Defendant is an officer in the United States Air Force and is designated a Military Judge and Special Trial Judiciary Officer by the Judge Advocate General of the United States Air Force. Defendant is represented by the United States Attorney for the District of Guam and has removed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C., § 1442(a)(1).


    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Civ. No. 75-053
  15. Hennegan v. Pacifico Creative Service, Inc. (1987)

    This matter comes before this Court on defendants'[1] motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs, Thomas J. and Gloria Hennegan, husband and wife (hereinafter the "Hennegans"), are park vendors who sell goods to Japanese tourists in Guam. Defendants consist of five tour operators and two retail stores in Guam whose businesses are aimed primarily at Japanese tourists.


    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Civ. No. 83-0040
  16. Y Aleman Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank (1975)

    Plaintiff has brought this action for declaratory relief asking this Court to declare the power of sale clause contained in a mortgage, given by plaintiff, mortgagor, to defendant, mortgagee, and the sale conducted pursuant thereto to be invalid and void, or in the alternative, to enter a declaratory judgment adjudging and declaring that the mortgaged property which was sold is subject to rights of redemption in favor of plaintiff. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the [...]

    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Civ. No. CIV-75-15
  17. United States v. Seagraves (1951)

    The court, over the objections of the defendant and pursuant to its order entered July 17, 1951 allowed the government to proceed to trial on the basis of an information without trial by jury. The question is presented as to whether the court has jurisdiction to try defendants accused of felonies against the United States without indictment by grand jury and trial by petit jury unless waived.


    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Cr. No. 7-51
  18. Fair Ocean Co. v. Cargo of Permina Samudra XII (1976)

    On June 17, 1976, plaintiff, Fair Ocean Company, Ltd., filed an in rem action against the cargo of the PERMINA SAMUDRA XII and an in personam action against PERUSAHAAN PERTAMBANGAN MINJAK DAN GAS BUMI NEGARA (hereinafter referred to as "PERTAMINA"). Plaintiff asserted as a basis for the action a maritime lien against defendant PERTAMINA. Plaintiff is the owner of the PERMINA SAMUDRA XII and on July 3, 1972 entered into a Tanker Time Charter Party Agreement with defendant by which defendant [...]

    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Civ. No. 76-024
  19. Palomo v. United States (1960)

    The complaint alleges that the defendant leased certain realty from the plaintiff for the period July 1, 1951, to June 30, 1957; that during said time employees of the defendant damaged the property in the sum of $155,557.45; and that the property has never been restored to its original condition. There are two causes of action set forth. The first paragraphs of the first and, by reference, second causes of action read,


    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Civ. No. 50-59
  20. United States v. Borja (1961)

    "The United States Attorney charges: That on the 5th day of January, 1961, at the Naval Communication Station, Guam, and waters contiguous thereto, a place within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the defendants * * * did use, throw, drop, or explode explosives in the waters of Guam for the purpose of killing or taking fish, all in violation of Section 13 of Title 18, United States Code (Section 12303, Government [...]

    Court: District Court for the District of Guam Docket: Crim. No. 1-61

1 of 2 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2