Drone technology — those pesky little flying machines that invade your privacy — has opened up a new dimension that previously was available only to real-life pilots and those with airplanes or helicopters.
As with most new things, there’s bound to be rules, even if those rules may be playing catch-up to reality. On Monday
We’ve been meaning to post People ex rel. Dept’ of Transportation v. Presidio Performing Arts Foundation, No. A145278 (Nov. 3, 2016) for a while (as you might be able to tell by the date of the opinion), thinking that one of our left coast colleagues more familiar with the workings of California’s goodwill-in-eminent-domain rules
Scopellitti’s properties were apparently falling apart, as they were subject to a list of code violations, so the city issued citations, and went through the proscribed nuisance abatement procedures. Scopellitti, it seems, pretty much ignored the violations and eventually the city demolished the properties, an action upheld by the city’s administrative process. Next step, an inverse
Here’s the recording of Hawaii Supreme Court oral arguments from last month in a case we first were following, and then later became involved in as counsel.
As we previewed here, the question which the court is reviewing is whether an appeal in a voter registration challenge case is timely brought when
The Sixth Circuit’s majority opinion in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County, No. 15-2463 (Feb. 10, 2017) isn’t all that exciting — after all, it was a takings case brought in federal court, and you know what that means: Williamson County — but do give it a read. The facts are somewhat unusual, even
Here’s an article, recently published by the Urban Lawyer (the law review produced by our ABA section, the Section of State and Local Government Law), with our take on the most interesting and important eminent domain and takings rulings from the past year.
Many of the cases discussed will be familiar to regular
This year, the University of Hawaii Law Review is devoting one of its issues to a symposium on issues related to the sharing economy.
On Friday, February 17, 2017, the law review is sponsoring a series of presentations from 9:00 am – 4:30 pm at the law school (lunch included if you RSVP ahead
We’ve spent a good portion of the last two weeks at conferences discussing the regulatory takings case now pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214.
The biggest question most had was why the Court had not scheduled oral arguments. There was a lot of speculation and gossip about the Chief
Bush’s trees had leafy spurge. “Hey,” said the Weed and Pest Control District, “we’ve got this herbicide stuff. How about we spray your trees free of charge? That will get rid of the leafy spurge.”
“Sure,” responded Bush.
Problem was the herbicide not only killed the leafy spurge. It (allegedly) killed some of the