July 2008

The property owner has filed its brief in oppositionto the County of Maui’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s recent decision in the federal court challenge to the County’s 40-50% affordable housing exaction, Kamaole Pointe Development LP v. County of Maui, No. 07-00447 DAE.  We wrote about the case earlier here (contains a…

In Moreno v. City of Sacramento, No. 06-15021 (9th Cir. July 28, 2008), the Ninth Circuit clarified the rules for calculating “prevailing party” attorneys fees in civil rights cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.  The district court rejected the plaintiff’s claim, and reduced both the number of hours the plaintiff’s attorney claimed, and…

A noteworthy case from the North Carolina Court of Appeals about the limits of Euclidean zoning.  Although the decision was issued in March 2008, it seems no one else has posted on the case, so we will. 

In City of Wilmington v. Hill, 657 S.E.2d 670 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008), the court struck…

The County of Maui has asked the federal court to reconsider its recent order granting in part and denying in part the County’s summary judgment motion.  A Maui property owner challenged the County’s “workforce housing” exaction ordinance, which requires a property owner to commit 40% to 50% of the unitsin most new housing developments to…

In D & D Land Holdings v. United States, No. 06-877L (filed under seal: June 25, 2008, reissued: June 30, 2008), the Court of Federal Claims held the landowner’s claim that the Border Patrol’s activities on its land resulted in a compensable Fifth Amendment taking was not barred by the six-year statute of limitations…

In Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims, No. 59416-8-1 (Wash. Ct. App. July 7, 2008), the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington held that a county ordinance which prohibited  a landowner from clearing 50% to 65% of his property violated a state statute prohibiting counties from imposing a “tax, fee, or…

Check out Jay Fidell’s op-ed in the Honolulu Advertiser, “Appeals court decision threatens our biotech sector” about the recent Intermediate Court of Appeals decision in Ohana Pale Ke Ao v. Bd. of Agriculture, State of Hawaii, No. 27855 (May 21, 2008). 

In that case, the ICA held that the state must complete an environmental assessment (EA) prior to approving a permit allowing the importation of genetically engineered algae.  Jay writes:

The case involves a permit for importation of a geneticallyengineered algae, a choice target of environmental activists. But thecourt decision is not limited to genetically modified organisms: Itcovers all animal and plant organisms, GMO and otherwise. And itdoesn’t affect just permit applications — it also affects permitsalready granted for organisms already in the state. Agriculturalresearch and cultivation also will undoubtedly be affected. Hard casesmake bad law.

The retroactive nature of the decision reminds usof the Superferry. There, the applicant did everything the Departmentof Transportation asked for and got its approval. Then, years later,the court imposed additional requirements. How different is that fromwhat happened here? The applicant here did everything Agriculture askedfor and got its permit. Then, years later, the court imposed additionalrequirements. How can you rely on what government tells you? How canyou do a business plan? How can you get investors?

Our summary of the decision here. 
Continue Reading Op-Ed on GMO Algae Case