The federal government has filed its invitation brief in Corboy v. Louie, No. 11-336 (cert. petition filed Sep. 15, 2011), the cert petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Hawaii Supreme Court’s dismissal of a challenge to the property tax exemptons conferred on lessees of Hawaiian Homesteads.
Only “native Hawaiians” are eligible
Earlier today, the Hawaii Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kaleikini v. Yoshioka, No. SCAP-11-0000611, the appeal asking whether archaeological review must be completed for the entire 20-mile length of the Honolulu rail project, or whether it can be done on a “phased” or segment-by-segment basis. (A preview and briefs are posted here.)
As of 10:00 a.m., the $4+ billion Honolulu rail project is officially in jeopardy.
Update: full report on the oral arguments here.
The Hawaii Supreme Court just concluded oral arguments in Kaleikini v. Yoshioka, No. SCAP-11-0000611 (preview and briefs posted here), and it does not look good for the City and the
In Johnson v. Des Moines Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation Authority, No. 11-0444 (May 18, 2012), the Iowa Supreme Court held that two separate condemnation cases should not have been consolidated even though each case involved the taking of part of the same parent tract of land from the same landowner. The court concluded that these
Check this out: my Owners’ Counsel of America colleague Kevin E. Anderson has a blog on eminent domain and related issues, forcusing on decisions from the Utah state and federal courts, Eminent Domain Review.
It’s not a new blog (Kevin has been posting since at least 2011), but it’s new to us, so
In a big development project such as the $4+ billion Honolulu rail, must environmental review under state law be undertaken taking into account the entire project, or can it be done on a segment-by-segment basis?
That’s the question the Hawaii Supreme Court will consider this Thursday, May 24, 2012, when it hears oral arguments in
Here’s the order, just issued by the three-judge district court denying the motion for preliminary injunction. More to come.
Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Kostick v. Nago
In Larson v. Sinclair Transp. Co., No 09SC966 (May 21, 2012), the Colorado Supreme Court held that a state statute does not grant a company such as Sinclair the ability to take property for the construction of petroleum pipelines.
The statute, Colorado Rev. Stat § 38-5-105, is not exactly elegant in its
We couldn’t post much last week due to a pressing engagement on Friday before a three-judge federal district court (the case challenging Hawaii’s latest state reapportionment plan on Equal Protection grounds in which we represent the plaintiffs — more here). But the court took the matter under submission, so while we are awaiting a
At least according to this story.