2010

The New Jersey Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon,No. A-49-09 (certification granted Nov. 10, 2009), to review the decision from New Jersey’s AppellateDivision which held that the government can assert inverse condemnationin order to take property without compensation. (If that leaves you scratching your head, you are not…

An interesting difference of opinion about the message in the current blockbuster Avatar. Eminent domain mavens Gideon Kanner and Rick Rayl initially agree that it’s not about eminent domain, but diverge on their philosophical approaches to the issue.

Rather than attempt to summarize their respective positions, it’s probably better we just refer you to…

Contradicting Chris Rock’s dictum (caution, may be very offensive), Fulton County, Georgia concluded there might be something untoward going on in the Champagne Room, at least in those serving alcohol. In Flanigan’s Enterprises, Inc. of Ga. v. Fulton County, No. 08-17035 (Feb. 16, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held…

Today, we filed the final briefs in the latest phase of County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship,two condemnation appeals presently before the Hawaii Supreme Court arising out of the County’s attemptsto take a Kona family’s property.

We filed this brief replying to the developer’s Answering Brief, and this brief in…

Barista’s note: we posted a version of this story before, on the 30th anniversary of the date the Court issued the opinion (December 4, 2009), but thought we would reprint a more detailed view, recently published in our firm’s newsletter, complete with photos.

Damon Key Celebrates Thirtieth Anniversary of Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Victory

What…

I’m on the road today, so don’t have the time to read this opinion in detail, but here’s another one for all you CEQA mavens.

In Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors, No. S163680 (Feb. 11, 2010), the California Supreme Court held:

In general, challenges to governmental action under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) face unusually short statutes of limitation. (§ 21167.) Most limitation statutes are triggered by the filing of a public notice, which reports an agency‟s determination about the applicability of CEQA or the potential environmental impact of a project. (§§ 21108, 21152.) As we explain in greater detail, an action challenging this determination must generally be brought within 30 days after the notice is filed. (§ 21167, subds. (b), (c) & (e).)

This case involves a particular kind of challenge following a notice of determination (NOD). If an NOD has been filed, but an action alleges that no environmental review was undertaken, which statute of limitations applies: (1) the general 30-day limit on challenges following a notice, or (2) the longer 180-day period provided for a case alleging that no environmental determination was made (§ 21167, subd. (a))? We hold that the filing of an NOD triggers a 30-day statute of limitations for all CEQA challenges to the decision announced in the notice. This interpretation is consistent with the language of section 21167 and the general approach of all notice-based statutes of limitation. The Legislature clearly intended the 30-day statute to apply when an agency files an NOD, and this limitations period may not be extended based on the nature of the CEQA violation alleged.

Because the Court of Appeal reached a contrary conclusion, we reverse that judgment.

Slip op. at 1-2 (footnote omitted). The full opinion is available here.
Continue Reading Cal Supremes Opine On Statutes Of Limitation In CEQA Challenges

This just in: in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Acoba, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a Maui council member immediately forfeits office should the council member violate the continuous residency requirements of Maui Charter § 3-3.  DeJetley v. Kahoohalahala, No. 29919 (Feb. 10, 2010). The court held that section 3-3 could be…

We average between three and five posts per week, often putting up decisions and briefs before they show up on Westlaw or Lexis. But we can’t keep up with everything — my firm and clients would probably like me to devote a bit of time to the actual practice of law. I wouldn’t want anyone…

The Connecticut Supreme Court has issued opinions in a trio of closely-watched eminent domain cases. The first two opinions deal with technicalities of eminent domain law, but the third overturns a $12 million jury verdict that the Town of Branford, Connecticut abused its eminent domain power.

In Town of Branford v. Santa Barbara, SC …