Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (because we filed an amicus brief in the Federal Circuit in support of the property owners, and will be filing a brief in support of the cert petition).
This is the case about New York City’s “Highline,” the abandoned elevated rail line which was converted into
Recall that in the wake of the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London, at least one of the Connecticut Supreme Court justices whose previous ruling was upheld, expressed his regrets. Others have made similar remarks.
Well, here may be a chance for the Connecticut Supreme Court
Here’s the amici brief we’re filing in a case which we told you about earlier, involving the way attorneys’ fees get calculated when a statute allows fee shifting.
This is the afterglow of a rails-to-trails takings case, in which the property owners are entitled under the Uniform Relocation Act to attorneys’ fees. We like.
Tomorrow, Thursday, October 6, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. at Aliiolani Hale, the Hawaii Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case we’ve been following (we filed an amicus brief in the case, supporting the property owner on the first Question Presented), County of Kauai v. Hanalei River Holdings, Ltd., No. SCWC-14-0000828.
The
During. Good crowd.
Before. Note the power strips on the tables.
Well played, Caesar’s, well played.
To supplement your written materials, here are the decisions and other materials which we spoke about this morning at the CLE International Eminent Domain seminar:
Denials of rehearing and motions for en banc review from a state intermediate appellate court generally do not catch our attention. But Ganson v. City of Marathon, No. 3D12-777 (Sep. 14, 2016) is the exception to that rule.
This is a long-running regulatory takings dispute between property owners in the Florida Keys — who
We love quo warranto cases. Not just because “if it ain’t Latin, it ain’t the law’ (as one of our favorite law school profs informed us), but because they are yet another means for citizens to challenge those holding and exercising power.
Here’s the latest from the Hawaii appellate courts, Ford v. Leithead-Todd
On one hand, we don’t care for attorneys’ fee fights. They are satellite litigation, almost always after the merits have been resolved. They can get tedious (does anyone like going over years of timesheets and billing records, and haggling over whether a motion should have reasonably taken 1 hour or 5 hours?), many judges don’t
Our law partner, Ken Kupchak, a scientist and lawyer, spends a lot of time on the Big Island. Volcano, specifically. So when he recently circulated these photos, taken on a hike-and-bike out to where the lava meets the sea, it reminded us of an article we jointly authored a few years ago about issues
In a case we’ve been following in which the County of Kauai is condemning several Hanalei-area parcels to expand an adjacent public beach park, the Hawaii Supreme Court has accepted certiorari and agreed to review these three questions:
QUESTION NO. 1.: Must two parcels physically abut in order for the jury to consider whether they