Currently at the annual conference on eminent domain law – as always, well worth attending.
In the morning’s session, Professor Kanner mentioned the recent decision in County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, No. 28882 (Dec. 24, 2008), which has not yet been published in the official reporters. The slip
One of the bigger developments, at least in Hawaii law, came in the last week of the year. We’re talking about the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, No. 28882 (Dec. 24, 2008) (and we’re not just hailing the case because we’re the attorneys
Following up on this post, where we pointed out several errors in a headline and subheadline in a Honolulu Star-Bulletin story on the Hawaii Supreme Court’s landmark eminent domain decision in County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, No. 28882 (Dec. 24, 2008), the Star-Bulletin has posted corrections and
I usually try to not take too seriously the headlines attached to a newspaper story or op-ed. After all, an editor — and not the reporter or op-ed author — may have written the headline, and it may be designed to grab a reader’s attention or focus on a part of the story the editor
You own a home built in 2002. A couple of years later, the county redevelopment authority decides that your home, and the properties your neighbors own, would together make a grand site for an industrial park. Your properties are “shovel-ready” (the authority’s term, not mine) and primed for industrial development.
So it decides your home
The New York Times posts a story, “House Stands as Legacy to Fight Against Developers,” about one woman’s refusal to sell her modest Seattle, Washington area home to a redeveloper, even when offered $1 million. If a picture is worth a thousand words…
While the case is not like Kelo — or the
In a major decision regarding eminent domain, whether the government must pay damages when its attempts to condemn property fail, and the standards applicable to challenging the government’s claim that a taking is for public use, the Hawaii Supreme Court today issued an opinion in County of Hawaii v. Richards, No. 28882, the consolidated
In City and County of San Francisco v. Coyne, No. A118222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. Dec. 5, 2008), the court held that in order to be compensated for goodwill under California law when a parcel is taken by eminent domain, the property owner must have a business on the parcel taken, and that
Overlawyered (chronicling the high cost of our legal system, it proclaims its mission to be) posts an item about the Bulldozed case, which we mentioned earlier today. In Royall pain to his critics, Walter Owens references a post by Jacob Sullum at Reason, and writes:
I can’t go on. I just can’t.
Following up on our earlier post, “‘No, I’m Spartacus!’” about the latest foul turn in the Bulldozed saga, the Institute for Justice (the folks who represented Susette Kelo) today announced that they are representing Carla T. Main, Bulldozed‘s author, in the defamation suit filed against her and and lawprof Richard Epstein (who