We’re meeting some deadlines today, so we don’t have much time to digest in detail the closely split decision by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in In re Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., No. 1979 C.D. 2015 (July 14, 2016).
The short story is that the majority upheld the power of Sunoco to take private
We were all set to post our thoughts on the Illinois Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Hampton v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, No. 119861 (July 8, 2016), when we were beaten to the punch by Erin Baker, an associate of our colleague (and fellow U. Hawaii law alum) Julie Tappendorf
For those of you who have always wanted a career in appellate law, or who have mused about pulling up stakes and practicing law in the rarefied air of Hawaii’s appellate courtrooms, here’s your chance:
The Appellate Division of the Hawaii Department of the Attorney General seeks to fill two vacancies for Deputy Solicitors General.
Here’s the amici brief we filed today in a fascinating case we told you about recently.
The core issue in Brott v. United States, No. 16-1466, which is currently being briefed in the Sixth Circuit, is whether plaintiffs who allege the United States took their property in a rails-to-trails case can only bring
In today’s per curiam opinion in Wiesenberg v. University of Hawaii, No. SCWC-15-0000711 (June 30, 2016), the Hawaii Supreme Court clarified a point of appellate procedure that has been unnecessarily vague — and therefore dangerous — for a while: whether a trial court’s entry of an amended judgment, entered after the filing of a
With apologies to Professor Kanner (who regularly features a “Lowball Watch” on his blog), we offer this report of Down v. Ministry of Transportation, No. LC140038 (May 12, 2016), a trial-level property owner victory by our Toronto colleague Shane Rayman (last seen in the pages of this blog winning a great case in the
Here’s one we’ve been waiting for, but had been hoping for a better result.
In Resource Investments, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-802 (cert. petition filed Dec. 16, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court was being asked to consider the issue it left open after United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following, and that could be hugely important. This is a case about federal court jurisdiction and takings claims against the federal government.
We reported on the of Brott v. United States when it commenced: it’s a rails-to-trails takings case, so it would be understandable if you thought
Free CLE credit, and a free lunch — who can top that?
Join two experts, U. Hawaii Law School Dean Avi Soifer, and Professor John Eastman (Chapman Law, and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas), in downtown Honolulu, tomorrow, Tuesday, June 28, 2016, for “United States Supreme Court Review – October 2015 Term.”
The power company needed an easement across Hylton’s land for a transmission line. It made him an offer, backed by an appraisal. But that appraisal didn’t account for Hylton’s mineral rights, although it acknowledged that the property did contain two coal deposits, at least according to Hylton.
The parties “signed an agreement granting [the utility]