To those who attended the workshop at the University of Hawaii law school, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Laws: Reclaiming the Past, Shaping the Future, thank you. Here are links to the cases I mentioned in my presentation.
- Penn Central Trans. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978),a case that highlights the competing concerns when the public’s desireto preserve a historic structure collides with a landowner’s desire tomake reasonable use of it.
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), the case where the U.S. Supreme Court held that if a use restriction was part of the “background principles” of nuisance and property law applicable to the property at issue, it could insulate the government from takings liability even if the restriction resulted in a total diminution of economically beneficial uses.
- Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc., No. A116362 (Sep. 18, 2008), the California case holding that the government is the proper defendant in a lawsuit alleging violation of the public trust, and that birds and other wildlife are subject to public trust principles.
- In Shanks v. Byrd, No. 06-35665 (Aug. 27, 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that a municipality’s alleged failure to enforce its zoning and historic preservation laws was not a due process violation.
- Vested rights and equitable estoppel: Arrow of Time, Vested Rights, Zoning Estoppel, and Development Agreements in Hawaii, 27 U. Haw. L. Rev. 17 (Feb. 2006).