This just in: the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175, a case we recently analyzed here.
We conclude that (1) Plaintiffs and the class they represent had no vested property rights to future accretions to their oceanfront land
On February 25, 2010, from 1:30 – 3:30 p.m. Eastern (12:30 CT, 11:30 a.m. MT, 10:30 PT, and 8:30 HST), my colleague and law partner Mark Murakami will be moderating a teleconference sponsored by the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law and the ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education: Beyond Gun Control: McDonald
Here’s one for all you CEQA mavens.
The California Supreme Court has determined that a denial of a conditional use permit to operate a private airport south of Sacramento is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act. Sunset Sky Ranch Pilots Ass’n v. County of Sacramento, No. S165861 (Dec. 28, 2009).
Elk
The holiday brings “light blogging” as they say, so instead of a substantive post, we’re listing some of our favorite quotations about property rights, eminent domain, and the like.
Have any of your own? Send them, and I’ll post.
Such difficulties indicate that the dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one.
Yet another year has comeand gone — our blog’s fourth — so it’s time for ourannual summary of the past year’s highlights in land use law and other topics we cover.
Like 2008, it was mostly a year of infill and incrementaldoctrinal shifts, with a couple of sea changes thrown in forexcitement: the Ninth Circuit
Forthose of you stuck in the office today, our annual Christmas Eve contest: I’ll send to thefirst three people who email me today their very own “limited edition”of my firm’s extra-large, cobalt blue coffee mug, shownbelow.
(Don’t forget to include your name and postal address in your email.)
A happy and safe holiday to all.
With all that has been going on lately (SCOTUS arguments in the judicial takings case, New York’s courts issuing two big eminent domain decisions, etc.), we haven’t had the opportunity to summarize the oral argument in a very important Hawaii case.
Last month, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals heard arguments in the
Trying to stop a taking of your property? You may have options in addition to a “public use” challenge, as was recently noted here. In this video, Albany Law School’s Amy Lavine details a potential problem with the bonds for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, which is the subject of a multi-jurisdictional eminent
Today, the Hawaii Supreme Court filed this Order Granting and Accepting Application for Transfer (Dec. 21, 2009), in County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, transferring the appeal from the Intermediate Court of Appeals. [Disclosure: my Damon Key colleagues and I represent the property owners in this case.]
This is the property
Last year, Professor Gideon Kanner tuned us in to a folk song apropos of eminent domain, “They’re Moving Father’s Grave to Build a Sewer” by the Clancy Brothers (sadly, earlier this month we lost Liam, the last of the Clancy Brothers).
They’re moving father’s grave to build a sewer,
They’re moving him regardless of