Today, in a case we’ve been following (because we filed a brief in support of the property owner), the California Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion essentially rewrote California’s precondemnation entry statute to give the government a pass.
The court assumed that entries which exceed the relatively minor entries contemplated by its prior
We were all set to post our thoughts on the Illinois Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Hampton v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, No. 119861 (July 8, 2016), when we were beaten to the punch by Erin Baker, an associate of our colleague (and fellow U. Hawaii law alum) Julie Tappendorf
For those of you who have always wanted a career in appellate law, or who have mused about pulling up stakes and practicing law in the rarefied air of Hawaii’s appellate courtrooms, here’s your chance:
The Appellate Division of the Hawaii Department of the Attorney General seeks to fill two vacancies for Deputy Solicitors General.
Here’s the amici brief we filed today in a fascinating case we told you about recently.
The core issue in Brott v. United States, No. 16-1466, which is currently being briefed in the Sixth Circuit, is whether plaintiffs who allege the United States took their property in a rails-to-trails case can only bring
In today’s per curiam opinion in Wiesenberg v. University of Hawaii, No. SCWC-15-0000711 (June 30, 2016), the Hawaii Supreme Court clarified a point of appellate procedure that has been unnecessarily vague — and therefore dangerous — for a while: whether a trial court’s entry of an amended judgment, entered after the filing of a
Here’s one we’ve been waiting for, but had been hoping for a better result.
In Resource Investments, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-802 (cert. petition filed Dec. 16, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court was being asked to consider the issue it left open after United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following, and that could be hugely important. This is a case about federal court jurisdiction and takings claims against the federal government.
We reported on the of Brott v. United States when it commenced: it’s a rails-to-trails takings case, so it would be understandable if you thought
Free CLE credit, and a free lunch — who can top that?
Join two experts, U. Hawaii Law School Dean Avi Soifer, and Professor John Eastman (Chapman Law, and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas), in downtown Honolulu, tomorrow, Tuesday, June 28, 2016, for “United States Supreme Court Review – October 2015 Term.”
It’s a good day. You win your takings case in the Texas Supreme Court. True, it’s a narrow 5-4 victory, and it merely reverses summary judgment against you, which means only that you live to fight another day. But a win is a win, we always say. The decision is based on the Texas Constitution, which
The oral argument heard this morning in the “Nai Aupuni” cases (Akina v. Hawaii, No. 15-17134, and No. 15-17453) by a panel of the Ninth Circuit (Chief Judge Thomas, and Judges Callahan and Murguia, riding circuit in Honolulu), was a study in contrasts.
On one side, representing the plaintiffs-appellants, was a lawyer from Washington D.C.’s