🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Samuel Pailthorpe King

United States District Court for the District of Hawaii district Retired 2010 · served 1972–2010 Appointed by Richard M. Nixon (Republican) 25 signed orders read

Judge King no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge King decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

King required clear and convincing proof before disturbing an existing naturalization judgment.

“The moving party must bear the burden of establishing fraud by clear and convincing evidence.”

He treated environmental review as a decision-making process that must precede continued project work.

“The impact statement is not supposed to be merely a progress report.”

Procedural preferences

Genuine disputes over contract notice and assent prevented resolution for either side without factfinding.

“Because of disputed factual issues, the court DENIES both motions.”

He protected the opportunity for personal appearance and appeal when an agency failed to follow a mandatory classification procedure.

“Moreover, defendant would have been entitled to the procedural rights of an opportunity for a personal appearance and appeal.”

Cautions

He rejected the argument that holding property through a revocable trust automatically removed statutory consumer protections.

“Merely because her ownership interest is in her living trust does not disqualify her from TILA’s protections.”

Court congestion did not excuse exceeding a criminal-case statutory deadline.

“General congestion of the court’s calendar cannot, however, provide a basis for delay beyond the Speedy Trial Act’s limits.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Stop H-3 Association v. Volpe
349 F. Supp. 1047 · 1972-10-18
Preliminary injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“Therefore, it is ordered that the defendants, their agents and employees, and any persons in active participation with them, are hereby enjoined from commencing or continuing or permitting the commencement or continuation of work or preparation as provided in contracts numbered 788, 856, 835, 1462 and 1831.”

Locke v. United States
351 F. Supp. 185 · 1972-11-16
Motions to dismiss (United States) Denied

“The motion to dismiss is denied.”

Petition of Arevalo
352 F. Supp. 215 · 1972-12-04
Motion to reopen judgment (United States) Denied

“The government’s motion is denied.”

Redmond v. Warner
355 F. Supp. 812 · 1973-02-20
Habeas petition (petitioners) Granted

“Petitioners and each of them shall be released from confinement in connection with such charges and specifications as soon as practicable but not later than noon of Thursday, February 22, 1973.”

Molokai Homesteaders Cooperative Ass'n v. Morton
356 F. Supp. 148 · 1973-03-12
Preliminary injunction (plaintiffs) Denied

“A preliminary injunction is denied on the grounds that (1) it is unlikely that plaintiffs will prevail on the merits, and (2) no irreparable injury to plaintiffs has been shown.”

United States v. Ward
366 F. Supp. 347 · 1973-11-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted and the indictment against Defendant Ward is dismissed.”

Hunt v. Weinberger
370 F. Supp. 245 · 1974-01-22
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby granted.”

United States v. Robison
376 F. Supp. 1024 · 1974-05-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The motion to dismiss Count Two of the indictment is granted.”

In Re Airport Assoc.
462 F. Supp. 320 · 1978-12-19
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant First Hawaiian Bank) Granted

“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW filed on April 26, 1978, and amended on July 17, 1978, be AMENDED as provided above and that the stay predicated thereon be lifted.”

Lapin v. Taylor
475 F. Supp. 446 · 1979-07-31
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“I conclude that the Order of Dismissal entered on June 5 should be modified to grant plaintiff 60 days from the entry of this order to amend his complaint.”

Yuclan Enterprises, Inc. v. Arre
488 F. Supp. 820 · 1980-04-22
Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“Thus Plaintiffs are entitled to a partial summary judgment declaring unconstitutional the provisions of Ordinance No. 79-26 that permit the refusal, suspension or revocation of a license to conduct any public shows in the future on the grounds that the applicant or licensee has conducted an ‘obscene, indecent or immoral’ public show or has been convicted of a violation of HRS Sections 712-1214 to 712-1215 in the past.”

Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“Since plaintiffs do not seek damages, the motion to dismiss is without merit and is denied.”

Bill's Crane Service, Inc. v. Quisenberry
545 F. Supp. 359 · 1982-08-10
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Summary Judgment is granted in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs as to Counts One and Two, and as to all claims arising prior to February 8, 1977 in Counts Three, Four and Five.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The available assigned-case metadata covers a narrow early-electronic cohort and does not establish the distribution of King’s full career caseload.

A historical record

Judge King no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.