We’re big fans of the University of Hawaii Law Review. Not just because it’s the flagship publication of our alma mater, but mostly because it publishes some worthy and useful articles from time to time (including ours).
But it’s always bothered us that the subscription service was really Old School. As in to
In the course of negotiating a successful hostage situation with tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and a bulldozer, the Spartanville, SC police department damaged a convenience store. So badly that the owners “were later asked by the City to tear it down as it did not comply with ordinances regarding vacant commercial buildings.” After the owners said
We published our first posts on this blog on August 31, 2006, ten years ago. In law blog years, that’s a lot of time. Heck, in regular years, that’s a lot of time. In the intervening decade, we’ve nailed up quite a few posts. This one is the 3,000th, a nice even number.
It’s
Our law partner, Ken Kupchak, a scientist and lawyer, spends a lot of time on the Big Island. Volcano, specifically. So when he recently circulated these photos, taken on a hike-and-bike out to where the lava meets the sea, it reminded us of an article we jointly authored a few years ago about issues
A short detour on this Monday to note the passing of the great Belgian-American jazzman Toots Thielemans. There’s no connection to the usual topics covered here, only that his music has kept us company during many long hours of writing and reading briefs and articles, soothing our nerves and inspiring us. We saw him
Entry statutes are in the news lately. As we reported here for example, the California Supreme Court recently saved California’s entry statute from unconstitutionality by implying a requirement for a jury trial (and other eminent domain protections) when the entries which the condemnor seeks to undertake constitute takings.
In that case, the party seeking entry
In a case we’ve been following in which the County of Kauai is condemning several Hanalei-area parcels to expand an adjacent public beach park, the Hawaii Supreme Court has accepted certiorari and agreed to review these three questions:
QUESTION NO. 1.: Must two parcels physically abut in order for the jury to consider whether they
Come on, you can admit it: reading judicial opinions about grammar rules and legislative history is about as exciting as watching paint dry. Or maybe it is more appropriate in this case to talk about old paint peeling. Because the Oregon Supreme Court’s opinion in Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake Oswego
You may call us anti-Holmesian, but we’re wary of any judicial opinion that has “clear and present danger” as its standard of review. Like “shouting fire in a crowded theater,” this legal meme gives more heat than light in our estimation, and doesn’t really tell you much.
But the phrase was at the
This just in, in a case we’ve been following closely.
In City of Perris v. Stemper, No. S2133468 (Aug. 15, 2016), the California Supreme Court held that the judge, and not the jury, determines the validity of a dedication which a condemnor asserts it would impose to get the condemned property “for free”