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.
Late last year, we posted the Complaint in a federal court lawsuit originating on Kauai. In that case, the owner of a property that has been designated for resort development for 35 years asserted that the adoption of a Charter amendment by the County’s voters and a follow-on ordinance adopted by the County Council that
We’ve commented on the various plans (mostly backed by a private venture capital outfit out of San Francisco) to have local municipalities seize underwater-but-performing morrtgages by eminent domain (see here and here, for example). Apparently the brainchild of Cornell lawprof Robert Hockett and sold as a “no lose” situation (see “Paying Paul
Here’s one we’ve been meaning to post for a few days. In California Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose, No. H0338563 (June 6, 2013), the California Court of Appeal (6th District) held that the city’s affordable housing exaction might survive judicial scrutiny because it was designed to promote the development of affordable
Mark your calendars for July 12, 2013 for our CLE teleconference on “Supreme Court Takings: A First Look at Koontz and Horne,” sponsored by the ABA’s State and Local Government Law Section. We’ll start at 1:00 pm ET (Noon CT, 11:00 am MT, 10:00 am PT, 7:00 am HT). Here’s the program
Here are links to the cases and other materials we spoke about at today’s teleconference with Professor Dan Mandelker and my OCA colleague Dwight Merriam:
