In this order, the Hawaii Supreme Court agreed to review (“accepted certiorari” in the local appellate lingo) the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ opinion in Green Party of Hawaii v. Nago, No. CAAP-14-0001313 (Dec. 18, 2015). That decision answered in part the often elusive question of “what is an agency ‘rule’ that triggers the rulemaking
New Cert Petition: By Upholding Public Beach Road Access, Maine Supreme Court Judicially Took Our Driveway
Here’s a cert petition recently filed, which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the opinion of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court under a judicial takings theory.
The petitioners argue that the Maine court took their private property when it departed from its prior decisions and a statute and concluded that a road to
Amicus Brief: NYC’s Highline Park Is A Taking: A “General” Easement Allowing All Uses Isn’t Really An Easement At All
Earlier today, we asked the Federal Circuit for its permission to file this amici brief urging the court to rehear its recent panel decision in Romanoff Equities, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-5034 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2016).
This is a rails-to-trails takings case in which the panel concluded that the words in the
Cal Supreme Court Post-Argument Analysis: Does The Entry Statute Provide The Same Protections As Eminent Domain?
California Associate Justice Goodwin Liu — often mentioned on short lists of potential future nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court even after the Republican-led Senate stymied his nomination by President Obama to the Ninth Circuit — just saw his chances for a promotion go up today, if ever so slightly. No, we’re not talking about
Quagmire Unabated: SCOTUS Will Not Revisit Williamson County (Yet)
The Supreme Court has declined to review the Second Circuit’s summary order upholding the dismissal of a federal court regulatory takings claim on Williamson County ripeness grounds.
In this order, the Court denied cert, over the dissent of Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Kennedy). We’ve said here many times why Williamson County is a
Election Law Detour: Hawaii SCT Dismisses Challenge To Ted Cruz Eligiblity
“Election contests” in Hawaii are pretty narrow cases, and are subject to strict rules regarding subject matter jurisdiction (the Hawaii Supreme Court has original jurisdiction), content, timing,and remedy. For more, see our earlier post “HAWSCT Confirms Election Contests Are Tough!” Thus, even when an election challenge may have merit, the road is an uphill
Hawaii Court Of Appeals Draws A Bright Line In Eminent Domain: In Larger Parcel Analysis, Unity Of Contiguity Means Parcels Must Touch
A longer post to start the week because it involves an eminent domain case, a somewhat rare occurrence from the Hawaii appellate courts. The issues determined by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals are important, and because we have an old eminent domain code and don’t have a whole lot of current decisional law applying it —
Another Amicus Brief In SCOTUS “Parcel As A Whole” Case: Aggregation Has “No Basis In Text, History, Or Predecent”
Continuing with our posting of the amicus briefs in Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, the “parcel as a whole” case now being considered by the Supreme Court, here is the brief filed in support of the property owner by several western states, principally authored by lawprof Ilya Somin.
Rather than summarize the brief here
SCOTUS Amici Brief: In Regulatory Takings, No Aggregation Of Separate, Commonly-Owned Parcels
The amicus briefs supporting the property owners/petitioners in Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, the “parcel as a whole” case now being considered by the Supreme Court, are rolling in.
Here’s the first one, the amici brief for the Cato Institute and the Owners’ Counsel of America. [Disclosure: we represent OCA on this filing.]
Merits Brief In SCOTUS “Parcel As A Whole” Case – No Aggregation Of Lots Which Owners Treated As Separate
Here’s the property owners’ Merits Brief, filed earlier this week in the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the “parcel as a whole” doctrine in regulatory takings (also known as the “denominator” issue).
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the owners did not have their property taken because