Today, I filed an amicus brief (750k pdf) in the appeal regarding “Act 73,” the state statute (codifed here and here) which declared that shoreline land naturally accreted belongs to the State of Hawaii and is public property.
Act 73 overturned the age-old rule of shoreline accretion and erosion, which held that beachfront owners
The Washington (state) Supreme Court, in Sleasman v. City of Lacey (No. 77590-7, Feb. 8, 2007), decided what it means to have a developed parcel. Actually, the court determined what the terms “undeveloped” and “partially developed” mean within the context of a local ordinance that regulates tree removal on such property. The opinion is a
The transcript of the oral argument in Sole v. Wyner (No. 06-531) (docket listing here) has been posted on the SCOTUS web site here. That case presents the issue of whether a party who wins apreliminary injunction — but ultimately loses the case — has”prevailed” under a federal statute that allows a
In Hawaii Home Infusion Assoc. v. Befitel, (No. 27256, Apr. 16, 2007), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the venue provisions in the declaratory judgment section of the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-7, are jurisdictional, and such actions must be brought in the judicial circuit in which the petitioner
Oral arguments in Cienega Gardens v. United States (Fed. Cir. No. 06-5051, Apr. 2, 2007), a case involving the application of the Penn Central ad-hoc test for regulatory takings, have been posted in two parts on the Federal Circuit’s web site: part 1 (68mb mp3), and part 2 (7mb mp3).
Also posted is the oral
Light posting this week — I’m at the Inverse Condemnation and Related Government Liability conference. If you’re attending, please look me up; I usually sit in the back row. If you couldn’t attend this year, you really should consider it in the future: it’s a great conference.
UH Law Professor Carl Christensen has kindly invited me to discuss takings law with the students in his historic preservation seminar on Monday. I think a good starting point is the granddaddy of historic preservation/regulatory takings decisions, Penn Central Trans. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), a case that highlights
To all those who attended today’s sessions on Practical Guide to Land Use and Zoning, thank you.
Here is the upcoming attorney’s fee case in the US Supreme Court that I mentioned, the Hawaii fee-shifting statute in cases of “development” without a permit in environmental matters, and California’s Ehrlich v. City of Culver City
In United States v. 191.07 Acres of Land (Martinek) (No. 04-35131, Apr. 4, 2007), the Ninth Circuit addressed two interesting issues in the context of a federal taking of unpatented gold- mining claims in Alaska’s Denali National Park.
The first is a question of appellate procedure: whether a party waives the right to appeal the
In United States v. 191.07 Acres of Land (Martinek)(No. 04-35131, Apr. 4, 2007), the Ninth Circuit set out a good definition of “inverse condemnation” in the context of when a property owner has a right to a jury trial for federal takings.
Where the [condemnor] does not acquire privately owned land statutorily