Here’s one that’s not a land use case, but since it involves procedural due process, is one that you land-usey types might find worthwhile.
Minton v. Quintal, No. SCWC-11-0000317 (Dec. 13, 2013) involved a claim by two stagehands at Honolulu’s Neil S. Blaisdell Center, owned and operated by the City and County of
…or at least an appeal from a contested case.
The Hawaii Supreme Court has issued its latest opinion in the apparently eternal metaphysical question of the circuit courts’ appellate jurisdiction to review decisions under the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14 of state and county agencies acting in their quasi-judicial capacities.
As
We’re offline today because we’re arguing a case in the Hawaii Supreme Court about automatic approval statutes and zoning law. Here’s the summary of the issues, via the Judiciary web site:
This appeal arises out of a decision by the Respondent Planning Commission of the County of Kaua`i (Planning Commission) to deny the Petitioner Kauai
Here’s the cert petition filed earlier this week, asking the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in MHC Financing Ltd. P’ship v. City of San Rafael,714 P.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2013).
That’s the case in which the Ninth Circuit overturned the District Court’s ruling (after two trials) that MHC had proven a
Word comes that the California Supreme Court has denied review of the Court of Appeal decision in Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda, No. A30874 (1st Dist. May 9, 2013). The court also rejected a request to “depublish” the First District’s opinion. Congratulations are again in order for colleague Tim Kassouni, who represents
Here’s the Complaint, filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Honolulu in which a windward Oahu property owner challenges the City and County of Honolulu’s removal of her protest signs on her property.
The rub? She’s protesting the City’s condemnation of her property back in 2010. Her complaint alleges that the city “neither owns
Here’s what we’re reading today:
What’s this, a federal court actually allowing a federal Fifth Amendment claim to be litigated in federal court? Why that’s as rare as hen’s teeth, although it shouldn’t be.
That’s the ruling of the Fourth Circuit in Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head, No. 12-1538 (July 25, 2013), which reversed the district
Remember that decision by the California Court of Appeal which held that the City of San Jose’s “inclusionary housing” exaction was subject only to low-level scrutiny and not the nexus-and-proportionality requirment?
Well, after Koontz, you should not be surprised that the decision has been taken to the next higher level and the California Building
This really was a “blockbuster” Term for the Supreme Court and takings law: no less than three cases (and four, maybe five, if you expand it slightly to include property-owner favorable cases such as Lozman and last term’s Sackett), and as Gideon Kanner noted recently, the CLE sessions are flying fast and furiously.
