On Monday, we joined our land use colleagues Dwight Merriam, Professor Shelley Saxer, and Professor David Callies for the Hawaii Bar Association’s Section of Real Property and Financial Services program, “Property Rights & Regulatory Takings,” a wide-ranging and very well-attended program for Hawaii dirt lawyers.
As the above photo notes (L to R: Charles Nelson Reilly, Dwight Merriam, Shelly Saxer, David Callies), we were not able to be in the room with our colleagues, but had to remote in, as our duties at William & Mary Law School kept us in Virginia and not able to be in downtown Honolulu at the same time. Ah well!
Here are the cases and materials we discussed:
- State of Hawaii v. Williams (Intermediate Court of Appeals, Summary Disposition Order): property owner should not have been prohibited from introducing evidence of the current use of his property at the time of the taking as the highest and best use for valuation purposes.
- City & County of Honolulu v. Victoria Ward, Ltd. (Hawaii Supreme Court): most valuation issues are for the jury, and summary judgment should not be used beyond its usual application to screen out valuation theories or expert testimony, as long as that testimony meets the usual standards for admission.
- Quick take as an Erie Procedural Question (U.S. District Court): the Hawaii eminent domain code’s immediate possession section is procedural, thus does not govern in a county-instituted eminent domain case removed to federal court.
- Land use: Is a government-imposed “church purposes” deed restriction void? (Hawaii Supreme Court). Argued but not yet decided.
- Promising Public Use cert petition denied by SCOTUS (U.S. Supreme Court).
- Hawaii courts avoid the unsettled question for wildfire liability: what model, California (inverse) or other courts (torty)?
- Trial court concludes moving the public/private boundary on beaches mauka is a taking (Rhode Island Superior Court).
- Defining property “sticks” is not only a matter of state law (U.S. Supreme Court): Unanimous SCOTUS in Tyler concludes “private property” is not wholly subject to state law definition.
- Shands v. City of Marathon: a total (Lucas) taking for downzoning (Florida Court of Appeal): beekeeping isn’t enough use, and TDRs go to compensation, not liability.
It was good to catch up with long-time dirt law colleagues and friends. Aloha!