Land use law

After Lingle v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005)informed us that the “substantially advance a legitimate state interest”test was one of substantive due process, not regulatory takings, the courts began revisiting the long-neglected topic of substantive due process in the land use context. 

  • The Ninth Circuit finally jettisoned the Armendariz v. Penman,

…

Several cases focused on the issue of due process notice in eminent domain.  In Divine v Town of Nantucket,449 Mass. 499, ___ N.E.2d ___ (July 19, 2007), the Supreme JudicialCourt of Massachusetts invalidated the town’s 1968 exercise of eminentdomain since the town’staking listed the owners of the property as “owners unknown,” which wasnot sufficient…

It’s a pretty rare event when a court invalidates a law for violating the Equal Protection clauses of either the Hawaii or U.S. Constitution under rational basis review.  In Silva v. City & County of Honolulu, No. 27385 (Aug. 10, 2007), the Hawaii Supreme Court did just that, holding that Haw. Rev. Stat.

In Brescia v. North Shore Ohana(No. 27211, July 12, 2007), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a property owner was not entitled to rely upon a county planning commission’s determination of the location of a shoreline setback when the planning commission retained the authority to give official assurances.  The case involved Kauai property within…

In Hawaii Home Infusion Assoc. v. Befitel,(No. 27256, Apr. 16, 2007), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that thevenue provisions in the declaratory judgment section of the HawaiiAdministrative Procedures Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-7,are jurisdictional, and such actions must be brought in the judicialcircuit in which the petitioner is domiciled.  Find out why…

In John R. Sand & Gravel v. United States, No. 06-1164 (Jan. 8, 2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the six year statute of limitations in the Tucker Act is “jurisdictional,” and must be ruled upon by a court when raised by an amicus on appeal, even when the government had waived it. …

An important case from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  In Middletown Township v. The Lands of Josef Seegar Stone, No 64 MAP 2006 (Dec. 28, 2007), the court upheld the power of a local government to take property “for any legitimate purpose,” notwithstanding statutory language that did not extend authority to the town to take…