Some takeaway points:
…
The Hawaii Supreme Court issued an opinion in Omerod v. Heirs of Kaheananui,No. 27118 (Nov. 15, 2007), a case which presents a fact pattern that is just so “Hawaii.” The case is a quiet title action, normally a sort ofho-hum affair long on detail, but short of broad interest. The decision, however, is notable…
In Omerod v. Heirs of Kaheananui,No. 27118 (Nov. 15, 2007), a quiet title action, the Hawaii Supreme Court clarified what is required for appellants to properly present their points of error on appeal under Haw. R. App. P. 28. The Court noted that one brief presented toolittle, while another brief presented too much. …
In Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Arizona,No. 05-17063 (Nov. 15, 2007), the Ninth Circuit held that Arizona’s”low bono” requirement that all attorneys serve as arbitrators for $75per day, maximum two days, is not a taking. It’s probably safe tosurmise that the plaintiff’s position probably received little sympathyoutside of certain members of…
Check out this story from the Big Island’s West Hawaii Today (free registration may be required), “Other counties’ vacation rental laws could prove Big Island boon,” which starts off with this theorem: “[t]he Big Island could soon experience a windfall ofvisitor dollars that would have otherwise flowed into Maui, Kauai andHonolulu.” …
More on Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Corp., No. 06-CV-645 (July 12, 2007), a decision from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals about the level of proof needed to show a “pretextual” — and therefore prohibited — taking.
I. Kelo and Pretextual Takings
In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S.
I sat in on today’s oral arguments in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (the nondiscretionary appeals court of first resort) in an interesting case, Ohana Pale Ke Ao v. Bd. of Agriculture, State of Hawaii, No. 27855. From the arguments and a quick review of the briefs, the primary issue in the case…
Thanks to Property Prof Blog for tipping us off to a recent case involving claims of “pretext” in eminent domain cases from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Corp., No. 06-CV-645 (July 12, 2007), posted here.
I haven’t had time to digest…
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (NY) has provided some guidance on how to prove a substantive due process zoning case, and what is a “property interest” that triggers constitutional protection. In Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta (No. 06-1718-cv) (Nov. 8, 2007), “Fun Quest” received a special use permit to…
The Court has posted the transcript of today’s oral argument in the John R. Sand and Gravel Co. v. United States appeal here.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the statute of limitations in inverse condemnation actions against the United States under the Tucker Act is “jurisdictional” or may be waived by the defendant. …
