Due process

In City of Dallas v. Stewart, No. 09-0257 (Jan. 27, 2012), the Texas Supreme Court provided a good reminder of the importance of property rights and due process, even when protecting rights may inconvenience the government. In that case, the court held that a determination by a city agency that a home was a

Roxie_logoSan Francisco Bay Areans: come join us at the Roxie Theater (3117 16th Street between Valencia and Guerrero, San Francisco) tonight for screenings of Battle for Brooklyn, the Oscar-shortlisted documentary film about the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case. Two shows, 7:00 and 9:00 p.m. Details, including ticket purchase here.

I’ll be

The transcript from today’s arguments in Sackett v. EPA, No. 10-1062. Justice Alito, quoted above (p. 37) was an active questioner. More to come after we’ve read the transcript. Disclosure: Pacific Legal Foundation represents the petitioners; I do PLF’s work in Hawaii.

Once again, our old friend and colleague Paul Schwind is following an interesting ongoing case. We’ve been tracking the “Bridge Aina Le`a” litigation, but have not had the time to digest the latest developments in a comprehensive fashion and Paul attended the recent federal court hearing in the federal phase, and has kindly provided

So you think you’ve seen accretion (the growth of new land on littoral or riparian property)? Check out the above video (also here), showing the latest dramatic lava flow on the Big Island of Hawaii. Now that’s accretion.

Is there a legal angle to this? Of course there is. To start you off

The old adage is that a waterway is “navigable” for purposes of federal law if it is deep enough to float a Supreme Court opinion. Seriously, though, the less cheeky test of navigability is whether a waterway is capable of being used in its natural state as an avenue of commerce, meaning whether it was

The EPA has filed its merits brief in Sackett v. EPA, No. 10-1062, the case in which Idaho property owners are asserting their right to challenge the agency’s assertion via a “compliance order” that a portion of their land are “wetlands” and that they violated the Clean Water Act.

The EPA’s brief asserts that

A reminder: on Tuesday, November 1, 2011, from noon to 1:00 p.m., I’ll be making a presentation to the Natural Resources Section of the Hawaii State Bar Association about the case currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court about the ability of property owners to challenge a jurisdictional determination by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency