We must say that we’re a touch conflicted about the Hawaii Supreme Court’s 4-1 decision in Lopez v. State of Hawaii, No. SCWC-11-0000512 (Feb. 12, 2014), issued yesterday.
On one hand, we like the idea that the fruits of your labor are your “property,” and cannot be taken away from you by the state
Looks like eminent domain and Hawaii are in the news today. Here’s what we’re reading:
Next Thursday, February 6, 2014, we’ll be in Chicago to moderate an American Bar Association discussion/debate on a topic that’s not our usual takings-eminent domain-land use stuff, but is still one of the hotter topics around. “They’ll Take My Big Gulp From My Cold Dead Hands” is an hour-and-a-half with three experts in
Here are the cert briefs in Kellberg v. Yuen, No. SCWC-12-0000266 (Haw. Jan. 22, 2014), the case in which the Hawaii Supreme Court held that there is only one “final decision” that a challenger must administratively appeal when objecting, and that due process requires the agency to give a challenger notice of the administrative
The Hawaii Supreme Court has issued an opinion that is very good for property owners and anyone who must use the administrative appeals process. [Disclosure: we represent the prevailing Petitioner in this case.]
In Kellberg v. Yuen, No. SCWC-12-0000266 (Jan. 22, 2014), the unanimous court, in a detailed opinion by Justice Pollack, held that
In Powell v. County of Humboldt, No. A137238 (Jan. 16, 2014), the California Court of Appeal held the County’s demand that landowners who sought an after-the-fact building permit for a carport and porch for their mobile home dedicate an overflight easement for the nearby Eureka airport did not run afoul of Nollan–Dolan
At the Hawaii Agriculture Law Conference which we just wrapped last week, perhaps the hottest topic on the agenda was the anti-GMO ordinances recently adopted by the Counties of Hawaii (Big Island) and Kauai.
Barista’s note: One advantage of having POTUS in town for a couple of weeks was that it resulted in a
Here are links to some of the materials mentioned at our session today on the GMO issue at the Hawaii Agriculture Law Conference:
Here’s the first of two amicus briefs filed in support of the petitioner in the judicial takings case we mentioned last week.
This brief, filed by the New England Legal Foundation, the Cato Institute, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and the Southeastern Legal Foundation, urges the Court to take the case, arguing that
We don’t usually hear much from the North Dakota Supreme Court. But here’s one that may have some interest. In Reep v. North Dakota, No. 20130110 (Dec. 26, 2013), the court held that the state owned the minerals up to the ordinary high water mark on navigable rivers, and always has, since statehood, under