Court-appointed appraisers awarded $7.5 million for the taking of property once used as a shopping mall, but being used as an office park at the time of the taking. The property owner challenged the award, and at trial sought to exclude tax appeal documents from two years earlier, in which it estimated the value of
Can Appellants Rely On Trial Court’s Erroneous Order Granting Extra Time To Appeal?
On Thursday, we attended oral arguments in the Hawaii Supreme Court in a case that should be of particular interest to all you appellate procedure wonks.
A few days before expiration of the filing date for the notice of appeal, the parties stipulated to a two week extension of time. The trial court approved and
Arkansas: Public Use Determinations Not Immediately Appealable
The city takes property for a bike trail. It deposited estimated compensation in court, and sought and obtained immediate possession. The owner disputed whether the city had the power to take his land, but the trial court rejected these arguments. The owner filed an interlocutory appeal on the public use and necessity issues. The city
What We Say To Courts
What owners of rent-controlled mobile home parks say to courts: “Unfair! Due Process! Rate-of-Return! Takings! Equal Protection!”
What courts hear: “blah blah DENIED blah blah blah DISMISSED blah blah blah AFFIRMED blah blah blah blah…”
Latest example: Besaro Mobile Home Park, LLC v. City of Fremont, No. A130753 (Mar. 1, 2012).
Kansas: Lawyer Not A “Party In Interest” In Condemnation Case
In Miller v. FW Commercial Properties, LLC, No. 105066 (Mar. 9, 2012), the Kansas Supreme Court held that a lawyer who represents a party in a condemnation case is not entitled to recapture his or her legal fees from another party’s condemnation award because the lawyer is not a “party in interest” in the
Trickle-Down Regulation: Environmental Maze Becomes “Stumbling Block” For The Little Guys
There’s a feature story in today’s Honolulu Star-Advertiser, “Red tape ties up groups’ fishpond restorations,” about a local caretaker group’s frustration with “government rules” they claim are thwarting their efforts to fix up a traditional littoral fishpond.
For those of you not familiar with these centuries-old aquacultural structures designed to catch
NY App: Can’t Have A Penn Central Taking With “Only” A 46% Loss In Value
The Penn Central test — reaffirmed in Lingle as the regulatory takings “benchmark” in all but a few cases — is one of those “factor” tests in which the trier of fact is supposed to examine three things: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the property; (2) the interference with investment-backed expectations, and
State’s BIO In New York Rent Control Case
Here’s the state’s BIO in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance as a due process violation and as a taking. We posted the cert petition and the three amicus briefs in support here.
Both respondents waived their rights to file
Amicus Briefs In Manhattan Just Compensation Case
Here are the other two amicus briefs in support of the petitioner in River Center LLC v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of New York, No. 11-922 (cert. petition filed Jan. 23, 2012).
That’s the case in which a Manhattan property owner and developer is challenging the compensation awarded by New York courts for
BIO In New York Rent Control Case: Market Rents Are “Unjust, Unreasonable, And Oppressive”
Here’s the BIO in Harmon v. Kimmel, No. 11-496 (cert. filed Oct. 17, 2011), the case challenging New York City’s rent control ordinance as a due process violation and as a taking. Although the respondents waived their right to respond, the Court requested they file an opposition.
We posted the cert petition and the