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
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