Usually, in disputes about who owns oceanfront property (in Waikiki, the really nice part of Waikiki, down on the Diamond Head side), each party claims ownership. Beachfront property, after all, is pretty valuable.
But sometimes, it can be a liability.
So maybe “hot potato” is more accurate in this case, since it involves an old
A key win for property rights today in the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in White v. City of Elk River, No. A12-0681 (Dec. 4, 2013). In that case, the court concluded that a municipality could not revoke a campground’s nonconforming use as penalty for alleged violations of the conditions of the conditional use permit.
We’re offline today because we’re arguing a case in the Hawaii Supreme Court about automatic approval statutes and zoning law. Here’s the summary of the issues, via the Judiciary web site:
This appeal arises out of a decision by the Respondent Planning Commission of the County of Kaua`i (Planning Commission) to deny the Petitioner Kauai
See this story from the local paper, “Man buys house next to ex-wife, erects middle finger statue.”
You stay classy, my friend.
A must read from our colleague Professor Steven Eagle (author of the Regulatory Takings treatise) about the Koontz case, Koontz in the Mansion and the Gatehouse, forthcoming in the Urban Lawyer.
Here’s the abstract:
This Article focuses on problems in implementing the U.S. Supreme Court’s expansion of its doctrine of unconstitutional conditions pertaining to
Worth reading: a new working paper on exactions and Koontz by a Pacific Legal Foundtion Fellow (PLF represented the prevailing property owner in Koontz).
The article, “Nollan and Dolan and Koontz – Oh My! The Exactions Trilogy Requires Developers to Cover the Full Social Costs of Their Projects, But No More,” by Christina
Today, the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected certiorari (remember that under our procedures, you “apply” for cert which is “accepted” or “rejected”), and declined to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ decision in In re Campbell, No. 30006 (June 13, 2013), the case involving Land Court registration (Torrens title) and mineral and metallic mining rights.
Here’s the State’s Reply Brief supporting its application for cert and responding to the landowner’s BIO in the land court registration case, In re Campbell. The brief argues that “[t]his is no minor land dispute,” and “that the State is very concerned about the ICA Opinion.”
What’s so important about the State’s claimed reservation
Here’s the Response to Application for Writ of Certiorari by the State of Hawaii, which opposes the State’s cert app asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to review for grave error the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ opinion in In re Trustees Under the Will of the Estate of James Campbell, No. 30006 (June 13
Before we get to the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto, No. 204771 (Oct, 17, 2013), here’s what we think is the money quote:
For these reasons, we believe Fogarty and Williams correctly interpreted [Cal. Cov’t Code] section 66020. The statute governs conditions on development