When most jurisdictions reacted to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S 469 (2005), they — naturally being aghast at the result — adopted legislation that either purported to make it easier on landowners, or harder on condemnors. Understandable, as the public uproar which Kelo caused has
Professor David Callies To Be Awarded Brigham-Kanner Prize At Property Rights Conference (Oct. 10-13, 2017), William & Mary Law School
Save the date: the William & Mary Law School’s Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Project has selected University of Hawaii Law Professor David L. Callies as the 2017 recipient of the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize.
The Project has also announced the dates for the B-K Conference:
When: October 10-13, 2017
Where: William & Mary
Wanted: Litigation Associate
From time to time, we’ve posted job openings here in the legal field in Honolulu. But never an opening on our home turf.
Well today, we’re soliciting applications for a litigation associate in our law firm, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert. We’re not going to reprint the official job posting (“challenging and rewarding environment, strong
8th Circuit: Not Using Easement For Granted Purpose = Trespass And Inverse Condemnation, But Not Unjust Enrichment
It’s flashback to Property I class today, folks.
Yesterday’s opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Barfield v. Sho-Me Power Elec. Coop., No. 15-2964 (Mar. 29, 2017) was about easements, and there wasn’t really a takings issue presented, but we thought we would post it anyway since it
Rickrolling Rail
Honolulu Civil Beat has an interesting editorial today about the Honolulu rail project, the 20-station, 21-mile elevated steel-on-steel project now being built at a cost that was first projected at about $3.8 billion, and at last count is somewhere in the $8 – $11 billion range.
The editorial, “Honolulu Rail: City Needs To Get
Kansas: Cost Of Replacing Fence On Condemned Property Isn’t Separate, But Part Of Just Comp Award
Another one (short) from the Kansas Supreme Court, this time a straight takings case, and not inverse condemnation.
In Pener v. King, No. 114850 (Mar. 24, 2017), the court tackled several issues in a case involving KDOT’s taking of land for highway project. Part of the taking required KDOT to take down the
Kansas – “Property” Or “Contract” Makes No Difference: State Violating Restrictive Covenant Is Inverse Condemnation
A noteworthy decision from the Kansas Supreme Court in Creegan v. State of Kansas, No. 111082 (Mar. 24, 2017).
The facts of the case are pretty simple. Kansas DOT purchased land in a subdivision subject to restrictive covenants (CC&R’s) which required all property within the subdivision to be used for single-family residential only. KDOT didn’t
“A Total Disaster From Start To Finish” – Expropriation And Economic Development, Canadian Style
We were in the neighborhood recently, so our Canadian colleague Shane Rayman suggested we pay a visit to the site of the largest expropriation (taking) of land in that country’s history, and what has been described as “the largest population displacement … since the 18th-century expulsion of the Acadians from the Maritimes.”
We’re talking about
Friday Round-Up: Murr Arguments, Exactions Cert Petition, Houston “Zoning”
Here’s what we’re reading this Friday:
- Here’s a more complete analysis of the recently-filed cert petition on whether legislatively-mandated permit conditions are exactions subject to Nollan/Dolan. From our colleague Bryan Wenter, former City Attorney for Walnut Creek, California. at Miller Starr Regalia’s land use blog.
- Professor Kanner on the Murr oral arguments. Our summary
New Cert Petition: Are Legislatively-Imposed Permit Conditions Subject To Nexus/Proportionality?
Here’s the cert petition, docketed yesterday, in a case we’ve been following on legislatively-imposed permit exactions, an issue in dire need of Supreme Court resolution.
Here’s the Question Presented:
A City of West Hollywood ordinance requires that builders of a proposed 11-unit condominium pay a $540,393.28 “affordable housing fee” to subsidize the construction of low-cost housing elsewhere