Selected Reported Cases

Eminent domain, regulatory takings, and property rights

• Leone v. County of Maui, 128 Haw. 183, 284 P.3d 956 (Haw. App. 2012) (represented amicus curiae arguing that Williamson County does not require a landowner to seek legislative changes in order to ripen a federal takings claim).

• County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 119 Haw. 352, 198 P.3d 615 (2008) (a court has an obligation to take seriously a property owner’s claim that the government’s proffered reasons for condemning private property is really just a pretext hiding private benefits)

• Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 130 S. Ct. 2592 (2010) (represented amicus curiae in case involving “judicial takings” claim)

• County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 124 Haw. 281, 242 P.3d 1136 (2010) (eminent domain and pretext), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 249 (2011)

• Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) (amicus curiae brief on the “public use” requirement in eminent domain)

• Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (amicus curiae brief on the standards for regulatory takings)

• County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 120 Haw. 399, 208 P.3d 277 (2009) (detailing standards for award of damages for a failed taking, including attorneys fees and costs)

• Alameda Gateway, Ltd. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 757, (1999) (protected waterway on San Francisco Bay from government encroachment – one of the few cases where a court has upheld an owner’s claim to compensation for taking of navigable waters)

• United States v. Alameda Gateway, Ltd., 213 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2000) petition for cert. withdrawn due to settlement (Aug. 2000)(represented property owner on appeal in suit by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

• Boone v. United States, 725 F. Supp, 1509 (D. Haw. 1989) and 743 F. Supp. 1367 9 (D. Haw. 1989), aff’d, 944 F.2d 1489 (9th Cir. 1991) (represented property owner at trial and on appeal protecting private navigable waters under inverse condemnation)

• Charles A. Pratt Constr. Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Comm’n, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1317 (2009) (amicus brief on Penn Central and Williamson County regulatory takings issues)

Constitutional Law

• Hamilton ex rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 126 Haw. 294, 270 P.3d 1024 (2012) (parents have a right to discripline their children, and have the right to raise the defense in Family Court proceedings to show cause on a civil TRO)

• United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011) (amicus brief supporting the Nation’s claim on subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims)

• Filarksy v. Delia, 132 S. Ct. 1657 (2012) (represented the American Bar Association as amicus curiae, successfully arguing that private lawyer retained by municipal government was entitled to assert qualified immunity in federal civil rights action)

Environmental law

• Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008) (amicus brief for nine retired Admirals and military service organizations in U.S. Supreme Court case regarding Navy’s use of sonar in training exercises off California coast)

Land use, water rights, shoreline and zoning law

• Hoku Lele, LLC v. City and County of Honolulu, No. CAAP-11-0001064 (Jan. 25, 2013) (a “zoning confirmation” is not an action by the Planning Director that must be administratively appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals).

• Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd., 119 Haw. 164, 194 P.3d 1126 (Haw. Ct. App.) (no private right of action under state zoning laws), cert. rejected, 2008 WL 5392320, 2008 Haw. App. LEXIS 686 (Haw. 2008)

• Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 129 S. Ct. 1336 (2009) (represented amicus in U.S. Supreme Court review of Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Housing and Community Dev. Corp. of Hawaii, 117 Haw. 174, 177 P.3d 884 (2008))

• Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, 122 Haw. 34, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009) (amicus brief supporting property owners who claim statute effected a regulatory taking of their shoreline property), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 529 (2010)

• Leslie v. County of Hawaii, 109 Haw. 384, 126 P.3d 1071 (2006) (amicus curiae brief in appeal regarding scope of coastal zone regulations)

• Maui Tomorrow v. State of Hawaii, 110 Haw. 234, 131 P.3d 517 (2006) (water rights litigation and related appeal for federal civil rights attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988)

• Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City & County of Honolulu, 773 P.2d 250 (Haw. 1989) (defended property owner’s coastal development permit from due process and equal protection challenges in Hawaii state courts and satellite litigation in Honolulu Zoning Board of Appeals)

• Kaiser Hawaii Kai Dev. Co. v. City & County of Honolulu, 777 P.2d 244 (Haw. 1989) (invalidating voter initiative as a means of enacting land use legislation)

• Lum Yip Kee, Ltd. v. City & County of Honolulu, 767 P.2d 244 (Haw. 1989) (amicus curiae brief in appeal challenging initiative as method of enacting zoning ordinances in Honolulu)

Election law, municipal law, and property taxes

• DeJetley v. Kahoohalahala, 1292 Haw. 251, 226 P.3d 421 (2010) (when a municipal charter provides that a council member “forfeits” his office if he does not continuously maintain residency in his district, the forfeiture may be enforced by declaratory judgment or quo warranto)

• Dupree v. Hiraga, 121 Haw. 297, 219 P.3d 1084 (2009)  (represented voters who challenged voter registration of county council member; court held that in order to register as a voter, a person must have a fixed habitation in the district in which he is attempting to register, as well as a “physical presence” there)

• County of Kauai ex rel. Nakazawa v. Baptiste, 115 Haw. 15, 165 P.3d 916 (2007) (represented homeowners and taxpayers in appeal of government challenge to validity of county charter capping real property taxes for resident homeowners)