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
You may call us anti-Holmesian, but we’re wary of any judicial opinion that has “clear and present danger” as its standard of review. Like “shouting fire in a crowded theater,” this legal meme gives more heat than light in our estimation, and doesn’t really tell you much.
But the phrase was at the
This just in, in a case we’ve been following closely.
In City of Perris v. Stemper, No. S2133468 (Aug. 15, 2016), the California Supreme Court held that the judge, and not the jury, determines the validity of a dedication which a condemnor asserts it would impose to get the condemned property “for free”
One for you land users. We’re not going to analyze the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ published opinion in Robert D. Ferris Trust v. Planning Comm’n of the County of Kauai, No. CAAP-15-0000581 (Aug. 9, 2016) in too much detail, because our Damon Key colleagues Greg Kugle and Chris Leong represent the prevailing appellant.
In City of Missoula v Mountain Water Co., No. DA-15-0365 (Aug. 2, 2016), a sharply divided Montana Supreme Court upheld the City of Missoula’s exercise of eminent domain to take a private water system. We’ve been following the case (see our oral argument notes here). The court’s majority concluded that the
“Petitioner owns the fee title to property known as the Ballona Lagoon, a narrow body of water connected to Marina del Rey, a manmade harbor located in a part of the city of Los Angeles called Venice. Venice is located on the Pacific Ocean between the Los Angeles International Airport and the city
Here’s the latest in that case we told you about a couple of months ago, a published ruling in an eminent domain case from the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. We wrote that in our view, the court got it really wrong on one of the three issues in the case, whether two parcels which