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 —
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
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.]
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
Here’s the amici brief we’re filing today on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center and the Hillsborough County Chapter of the NAACP in support of a cert petition now pending at the Supreme Court.
The case centers around a “class of one” Equal Protection claim in which the plaintiff/petitioner alleges
In a ruling that no one who was paying attention could claim to be surprised by, the Hawaii Supreme Court yesterday issued a 4-1 memorandum opinion holding that the “agricultural lands” section of the Hawaii Constitution isn’t self-executing, and which approved the State Land Use Commission’s reclassification of land on Oahu from agricultural to urban
Yet another detour back to our second favorite topic, election law.
Casetext asked us to provide some commentary and analysis of the Supreme Court’s recent Evenwel opinion, and we produced this piece (“What Does Evenwel v. Abbott Mean For ‘One Person, One Vote?’“), which is a refinement of our earlier blog
When you raise 13 issues on appeal, you shouldn’t be surprised if the court balks at analyzing them all. That was the case in City of Gulfport v. Dedeaux Utility Co., No. 2014-CA-00556-SCT (Mar. 24, 2016), where the Mississippi Supreme Court didn’t address the majority of the points raised by the city on
Early next month, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases which we’ve been closely following:
Who must may be counted for reapportionment purposes?
Everyone!
A slight detour from our usual fare, to post some thoughts about today’s big U.S. Supreme Court opinion on election law in Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940. Evenwel is the sleeper case of the Term, and opened the possibility that the we might