December 2010

Senior U.S. District Judge Samuel P. King — an iconic figure in Hawaii’s legal circles — passed away last week, sparking an outpouring of praise, reminiscence, and love. While many remember him for his relatively recent role as one of the authors of Broken Trust, the book that sparked the reformation of the Bishop Estate trustees, his long service on the state and federal benches mean that his impact was much broader.

We can’t add much to how Judge King is being fondly remembered by others, except to note this one nearly forgotten snippet that resulted in a published opinion of the Hawaii Supreme Court that’s certainly not more than a footnote in Judge King’s life, but it is an interesting peek into local politics, how those politics can seem to creep over into judicial decision making, and how there’s often much more lurking beneath the surface of…

Continue Reading An Interesting Footnote To Judge King’s Career

The Columbia Spectator, the student newspaper of Columbia University has a story about  Tuck-It-Away, Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., No. 10-402 (cert. petition filed Sep. 21, 2010), the case about the New York State Urban Development Corporation’s attempt to take property for a new Columbia campus, which is up for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court at today’s conference.

In U.S. Supreme Court to consider hearing M’ville case, the Spectator quotes the property owners and their lawyer:

At stake are the only properties in the expansion zone—from 125th to 134th streets, from Broadway to 12th Avenue—that Columbia does not yet own: Nick Sprayregen’s four Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage locations and two gas stations owned by Gurnam Singh and Parminder Kaur. Under eminent domain, the state would turn the properties over to the University in exchange for market-rate compensation for Sprayregen, Singh, and Kaur.

“The significance…

Continue Reading Columbia Spectator On The Columbia Eminent Domain Cert Petition

The court has posted the recording of yesterday’s oral argument in Leone v. County of Maui, No. 29696, a case that we’ve been following closely involving federal regulatory takings claims, Williamson County ripeness, and the practical effect of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in GATRI v. Blane, 88 Haw. 108, 962 P.2d 367 (1998) regarding zoning and planning for land in the Special Management Area.

We live blogged the argument, and now you can listen and follow along. Be warned, the file is an 84 mb mp3, so be prepared for a long download. Still not scared off? Download it here.

Briefs in the case are posted here.Continue Reading Oral Argument Recording In HAWICA Takings And Ripeness Case

SCOTUSblog has listed in Tuck-It-Away, Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., No. 10-402 (cert. petition filed Sep. 21, 2010) as a “Petition to Watch”  (scroll down to the fourth case) for tomorrow’s conference. The results of the conference should be released on Monday morning.

SCOTUSblog has posted most the cert stage briefing, or you can get all of the briefs here. As we noted earlier today, Norman Oder has posted an excellent summary of the issues in the case on his Atlantic Yards Report blog.

While we are talking Tuck-It-Away, check out this column from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which includes a video (also posted here) of the petitioner Nick Sprayregen, his counsel, New York civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, and New York State Senator Bill Perkins (who filed amicus briefs supporting Sprayregen) after the oral arguments in the New York Court Continue Reading Columbia Eminent Domain Cert Petition Is a SCOTUSblog “Petition To Watch”

On his indispensable blog Atlantic Yards Report, journalist Norman Oder has posted a comprehensive summary of the issues in the Columbia eminent domain case, which is scheduled to be considered at the Supreme Court’s conference this Friday, December 10, 2010.

In In effort to get Supreme Court to hear Columbia eminent domain case, AY precedent and New York practices seen as outliers favoring condemnors, Oder writes:

The Columbia University expansion case should reach a reckoning this week at the U.S. Supreme Court, which, if in the unlikely case it accepts the appeal, could place a check on eminent domain as practiced in New York State.

As I wrote in September, after seeing a surprising Appellate Division victory overturned unanimously by the state Court of Appeals, which relied on its Atlantic Yards decision, Tuck-It-Away owner Nick Sprayregen and the Kaur/Singh family are trying to get to the Supreme…

Continue Reading A Very Good Summary Of The Columbia Eminent Domain Cert Petition Issues

troubleinparadise

(Click on the image to enlarge)

A colleague pointed out Dave Swann’s Trouble in Paradise strip from the Sunday Star-Advertiser that puts a comic twist on what Professor Paul Boudreaux has called “drawbridge protectionism.”

There’s more than a touch of reality in Swann’s strip, because having a bumper sticker on your car that you are down with the cause is just short of what you need to get standing to bring an environmental lawsuit in Hawaii’s courts. A bumper sticker alone might not be enough, but it’s close.Continue Reading “I Got Mine” Fits On A Bumper Sticker

This morning, at 10:00 a.m. HST (3 p.m. EST, noon PST), the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in a case we’ve been following that involves federal regulatory takings claims, Williamson County ripeness, and the practical effect of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in GATRI v. Blane,  88 Haw. 108, 962 P.2d 367 (1998) regarding zoning and planning for land in the Special Management Area.

Leone v. County of Maui, No. 2969 is a case that has U.S. Supreme Court potential if the Hawaii courts don’t get it right and is definitely one to watch. In that case, Maui beachfront property owners’ federal regulatory takings claims were dismissed by a state trial court because the court concluded the property owners had not exhausted their administrative remedies.

We will be live blogging the arguments starting at about 9:55 a.m. Joining me will be my…

Continue Reading Live Blog Today: Must A Property Owner Seek To Change The Law To Ripen A Federal Takings Claim?

The property owner has filed its Reply to the Brief in Opposition in Tuck-It-Away, Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., No. 10-402 (cert. petition filed Sep. 21, 2010). That’s the case in which upper Manhattan property owners have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in the Columbia “blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125 (June 24, 2010).

The New York Court of Appeals held that de novo judicial review of the factual record leading to an exercise of the eminent domain power was improper, and whether property can be taken because it allegedly is “substandard or insanitary” is a question for taking agencies, not courts.

The cert petition poses two Questions Presented:

This Petition should be granted to address two urgent questions arising from the Court of Appeals of New York’s…

Continue Reading Final Cert Stage Brief In Columbia Eminent Domain Case

We’ve been meaning to post links to these items for a while:

Continue Reading Monday Round Up

As we have noted previously, we love creative lawyering. But sometimes … well, just check this case out for an unusual approach to “takings” claims.

In McCarthy v. City of Cleveland, No. 09-4149 (Nov. 9, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed a claim that the city’s red light and traffic camera ordinance effected a taking of property because it imposed liability on the owner of the vehicle. The plaintiffs leased their cars and received traffic citations which they did not contest.

The plaintiffs filed federal takings claim in Ohio state court (as required by Williamson County), but the city (as allowed by International College of Surgeons) removed the case to federal district court. Long story short: the district court dismissed, the Sixth Circuit affirmed:

These two examples, in which the Supreme Court found a per se taking of funds, explain…

Continue Reading Sixth Circuit: Red Light Camera Ordinance Not A Taking