On November 4, 2008, Honolulu voters are being asked to say yes or no to a proposed amendment to the Honolulu charter:
Shall the powers, duties, and functions of the city, through its director of transportation services, include establishment of a steel wheel on steel rail transit system?
A “yes” vote means that the proposed
What more could we possible say about the bizarre ripeness/issue preclusion Catch-22 brought on by Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) that we haven’t said before, several times? The rule is unique to regulatory takings law and forces property owners alleging violation of
I don’t pretend to be an expert on the California Environmental Quality Act — 1700-page treatises are devoted to CEQA’s nuances — but I know enough to realize that the California Supreme Court’s decision in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood, No. S151402 (Oct. 30, 3008) is an important one. The court framed
In Nuuanu Valley Ass’n v. City & County of Honolulu, No. 28599 (Oct. 24, 2008), the Supreme Court of Hawaii clarified when a project that is not being built on state or county land meets the definition of “use” of such lands triggering review under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. ch.
This post is not about inverse condemnation, eminent domain, or land use law. It is about my colleague, law partner, and friend Charles W. Key. Charlie died at home September 10, 2008. He was 79.
Charlie was a man of wry charm whose legacy in his community, with the Bar, and in our firm which
The New York Times posts the obituary of Dorothy Miner, a key player in the case that resulted in Penn Central Trans. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978),the U.S. Supreme Court case that gave us the three-part “ad hoc” regulatory takings test:
She played an important role in the
Thanks to Professor Friedman’s Religion Clause blog for the post about the federal government seeking Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Buono v. Kempthorne, No. 05-55852 (Sep. 6, 2007). In that case, the Ninth Circuit invalidated a land swap on Establishment Clause grounds. The Solicitor General’s cert petition suggests two Questions
A pharmaceutical company whose legal prescription drugs were seized as evidence against a third party by the federal government which then let the expiration date pass rendering the drugs worthless, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision denying compensation. Amerisource Corp. v. United States, No. 08-497 (petition for cert.
In a lengthy opinion, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals in Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd., No. 28359 (Oct. 21, 2008), held that the State Land Use Law, Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 205, does not create a private right of action allowing for non-governmental enforcement of the law. The court also held there
A worthwhile article in the latest edition of The Urban Lawyer about settling land use disputes with processes that may not adhere strictly to the usual permit consideration procedures. Here’s the summary from the ABA’s site:
Paul D. Wilson, Of Synagogues and Nude Juice Bars: Can a Municipality Settle Land Use Litigation Without a