Here are the cases we discussed in this morning’s session at the Eminent Domain & Land Use in Hawaii seminar:
- Brown v. Howard, No 26991 (June 21, 2011), the case in which the South Carolina Supreme Court held that an attorney’s services constitute property, and that property was taken when a trial court refused to let a court-appointed attorney withdraw from defending a criminal case, forcing him to work for a fee capped at $3,500. Here’s the Bar Association’s amicus brief on the issue.
- The California Supreme Court case holding that a lender’s withdrawal of a deposit does not waive defenses of ther condemnation defendants.
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
- County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 198 P.3d 615 (Haw. 2008) (under Kelo, trial courts presented with prima facie evidence that the stated public use is a pretext to cover up private benefit must look to the real motive for a taking even if the taking is for a “classic” use).
- Coupe II – all about recovery of damages under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 101-27 when a taking fails or is defeated
- County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 242 P.3d 1136 (2010) (Coupe III) (the above case after remand – affirming the legal test but finding that the property owner did not prove pretext, ), cert. denied (2011).
- The recent case on § 101-27 from the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals that Jim Mee discussed – Sherman v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 28945 (Dec. 27, 2011) (memorandum opinion).
- Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d 331 (Pa. 2007) (a court reviewing a public use challenge should look to objective evidence of the condemnor’s “real purpose”).
- 9th Circuit: California Raisins Were Not Taken (Horne v. U.S.D.A., No. 10-15270 (9th Cir. July 25, 2011)).
- The petition for rehearing en banc in the Federal Circuit case about attorneys fees under the Uniform Relocation Act.