We’re tied up all day in the 10th Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, but two other bloggers have stepped up to fill the gap, offering cogent analysis and some contrarian thoughts about the recent oral arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012).
Most
In addition to our summary of and reaction to yesterday’s oral arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), here is the leading commentary from other sources:
When you are a property owner making a takings argument and Justice Scalia gives you a hard time at oral argument, you would be safe in thinking that you’ve got an uphill battle.
That was the situation today during the oral argument (transcript here) in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist.
When we first read the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Muscarello v. Winnebago County Bd., No. 11-2332 (7th Cir. Dec. 7, 2012), a case involving takings, due process, and other* challenges to a county zoning ordinance making it easier to build a wind farm, our first thought was “that case sounds familiar.”
It was. In
You know how we’re always saying that certain parties have an enviable record of success in the Hawaii Supreme Court? Well, now the statistics are official.
The latest edition of the University of Hawaii Law Review published an article by lawprof David Callies summarzing the decisions of the court during the tenure of now-retired Chief
Here’s petitioner’s reply brief in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), which responds to the Water Management District’s merits brief.
In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court will address whether the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards of Nollan and Dolan are applicable only
Here’s the respondent’s brief in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012). That’s the case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards of Nollan and Dolan are applicable only to exactions for land, or whether they are generally-applicable
The three-part Penn Central test for an ad hoc regulatory taking tasks courts with evaluation of the economic impact of the regulation on the property’s use, the property owner’s distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. Throw all of these “factors” into a pot, stir, and voila, the answer of whether
Check out this complaint, filed last week in federal court in Honolulu by a Kauai councilmember against the County of Kauai, a Planning Department Official, and the Kauai prosecutor. The councilmember claims the defendants maliciously prosecuted him for a zoning violation.
And just what was the alleged zoning violation?
While the Planning official was
Here’s a follow up to our earlier brief post about the opinion in Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, No.11-56253 (Sep. 5, 2012), in which a 2-1 Ninth Circuit panel held that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the homeless against the City of L.A.’s seizure and destruction of their “momentarily unattended” property. The