Those of you interested in the ongoing debate about vacation rentals (aka TVR’s) (in Honolulu, the minimum period a property owner can rent in a residential district under the zoning code is 31 days, unless the owner possesses a nonconforming use permit) should read the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ published opinion in Dao v.
ALI-CLE Palm Springs (72º, Sunny) Here We Come
If you didn’t register to attend the 36th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference later this week in Palm Springs, California, well then, shame on you!
According to the National Weather Service, while you and the rest of the country is freezing, we’ll be enjoying the balmy desert climes, and discussing
Wrapping Up 2018, And Previewing 2019’s Most Important Case: Final Briefs In Knick v. Township Of Scott
We’re going to end 2018 with the latest in what we think was the most important issue of the past year (and which, we predict, will be the most important case in takings law for at least a decade when it likely gets decided in 2019), Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647.
That
HAWSCT’s Latest Water Case Isn’t About Water
You might think from the caption of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Contested Case Hearing on the Water Use Permit Application Originally Filed by Kukui (Molokai), Inc., No. SCOT-17-0000184 (Dec. 10, 2018), that, oh boy, we were about to get yet another pronunciation on Hawaii’s water law from the court.
ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Palm Springs Brochure Is Out
Get ready. In this and upcoming posts, we’re going to be featuring the items on our agenda for the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, January 24-26, 2019, in sunny Palm Springs, California.
ALI-CLE has released the brochure, which those of you on the mailing list should have received —
Cal Appeals Court Rejects Utility’s Petition To Review PUC’s Denial Of Wildfire Inverse Condemnation Rate Increase – Hard Questions Remain
In the middle of the terrible news from the latest wildfires to hit California comes this order from the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, declining to issue a writ to review the California Public Utilities Commission’s rejection of SDG&E’s request for a rate increase to cover the costs of settling inverse condemnation claims
New Cert Petition: Can Congress Delegate To An Executive Agency Appeals Process The Power To Decide Whether A Taking Violates The Public Use Clause?
Pipelines are a hot topic. So much so that we’re devoting a couple of sessions at the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference to the subject (“Where You Haven’t Gone Before: New Approaches to Challenging the Take,” and “Compensation Pitfalls: How to Avoid Problems,” for example).
And, with
Cal App: No Taking For Development Moratorium Because Owners Had Not Asked For Development Permits
Ah, the speed of the interwebs: we were all set to write something up about the California Court of Appeal’s recent opinion in Black v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, No. B285135 (Sep. 6, 2018), when our friend and colleague Bryan Wenter beat us to it.
His post, “Court Rejects Residents’
Eighth Circuit: Congress Didn’t Intend For The Uniform Relocation Act To Be Judicially Enforceable
A hot — but most often neglected — topic, getting hotter: relocation benefits.
In Osher v. City of St. Louis, No. 17-2402 (Sep. 6, 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals joined the Fourth Circuit in its conclusion that the Uniform Relocation Act provisions are mere guidelines (insert our oft-repeated Pirate’s Code reference here), and
Third Circuit: Takings Challenge To Pipeline Belongs In FERC
Come on, let’s be candid here. When we pick up an opinion filled with statutory and regulatory jargon — replete with agency acronyms — our eyes see the words, but our brains process them like they are being spoken by the adults in the Peanuts cartoons.
But then we spot the words “eminent domain”