Here’s the latest decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court applying the “private attorney general” doctrine, which allows a prevailing party to recover fees and costs in certain limited circumstances. In Kaleikini v. Yoshioka, No. SCAP-11-0000611 (May 2, 2013), the court awarded attorneys’ fees and costs incurred on appeal to the plaintiffs who prevailed in
Materials From Today’s Virginia Eminent Domain Conference
For those of you attending the Virginia Eminent Domain Conference, here’s the expanded papers on “Tough Takings Questions: Regulatory Takings, Zoning Issues and Judicial Takings” and Public Use issues.
Use the password provided at the conference to open the pdf’s. It’s the same p/w for both. If you forgot the password, email me.
For those who did not attend, sorry folks, there are some benefits to coming to a conference! Y’all are going to have to wait for a bit — after a decent interval to allow the attendees to get their money’s worth, we’ll remove the password.
For more about the cases and books we discussed yesterday during my presentation on “Virginia’s Place in National Eminent Domain Trends, check these out:
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) (private takings, Public Use Clause).
- Lingle v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (gas station rent control, and the demise of the “substantially advance” test as a takings test).
- Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) (navigable waters, regulatory takings).
- Livingston v. Virginia Dep’t of Transportation, 726 S.E.2d 264 (Va. 2012) (flooding and taking liability).
- James Ely, The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights (1998) (read this book!).
Continue Reading Materials From Today’s Virginia Eminent Domain Conference
Fifth Circuit: City Not Required To Give Notice Prior To Demolishing Building If It Merely Believed There Was An Emergency
A short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In RBII, L.P. v. City of San Antonio, No. 11-50626 (Apr. 23, 2013), the court overturned a jury verdict that the city violated the due process and Fourth Amendment rights of a property owner when the city demolished its building without
The Ninth Circuit Botches Regulatory Takings Again
When reading the Ninth Circuit’s latest foray into the regulatory takings doctrine which holds that a muncipal rent control ordinance did not qualify under Penn Central (MHC Financing Ltd P’ship v. City of San Rafael, No. 07-15983 (Apr. 17, 2013), we were reminded of the opening line in Andy Williams’ signature tune “
Ninth Circuit: No Penn Central Taking In Rent Control Ordinance
This just in: the Ninth Circuit has issued an opinion in MHC Financing Ltd P’ship v. City of San Rafael, No. 07-15983 (Apr. 17, 2013), reversing the District Court’s decision that the city’s mobilehome rent control ordinance was a taking under Penn Central.
More, after a chance to review the opinion.
Fla Fed Ct: Exaction Scheme Is “Constitutional Mischief” To Avoid “Nettlesome Payment of ‘Just Compensation'”
Here’s one to brighten your day, courtesy of the the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Flordia (that’s Tampa, to all you non-Floridians). In Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County, No. 8:10-cv-819-T-23TBM (Apr. 12, 2013), the court held the county’s “Right of Way Preservation Ordinance” that allows it to land
Podcast On The Tombstone Federal Lands Access Case
Earlier today, the Supreme Court considered whether to grant review in City of Tombstone v. United States, No. 12-1069 (cert. petition filed Feb. 27, 2013).
The City of Tombstone‘s cert petition asks whether the city “is likely to succeed on the merits of the claim that the Forest Service violated the Tenth Amendment
Indiana S Ct: Meaning Of “De Novo” Rehearing In Eminent Domain Code Not Quite A “No Brainer”
Check out the opinion of the Indiana Supreme Court in Utility Center, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, No. 90S04-1208-PL-450 (Apr. 11, 2013. The issue is what the term “rehear … de novo” means in Indiana’s eminent domain code relating to condemnations by cities and towns, which provides for such review by trial courts
Strong Letter To Follow…
Yesterday, we posted our thoughts on a recent article in Hawaii Business magazine about land use, environmental law, and the Hawaii Supreme Court.
In “‘Let ‘Em Eat Cake’ Comes to Hawaii, Professor Gideon Kanner has added his thought on the article. He comments on the article’s conclusion that “[i]f we don’t like the [environmental] laws anymore, we can elect officials to change them.” by writing:
Hawaii Business magazine have never heard about the principle that statutes have to be constitutional? Would they make the same argument in the case of overreaching criminal laws? Racial segregation laws? Laws impairing the exercise of the First Amendment?
…
Moreover, under the “reasoning” of these idiots, no law need be constitutional because if the legislature disregards a provision of the Bill of Rights, we can tell the complaining citizens to be better electors next time and to elect more constitutionally sensitive representatives.
Lord in heaven! Is there no limit to these guys’ stupidity? Evidently not.
Read his entire commentary here. By the way, before you are tempted to dismiss Professor Kanner as an outlander (yes, Justice Scalia really did call out-of-staters “outlanders” in a recent oral argument), his ties to Hawaii and his knowledge of our ways go way, way back.
Continue Reading Strong Letter To Follow…
Hawaii Supreme Court Gets Into The Weeds On Shorelines
oral Several justices (Justice Acoba, Justice Pollock) appeared quite hostile to the DLNR’s position. Their questions went beyond the usual “devil’s advocate” type questions where the questioner is testing a theory, or speaking through counsel to the other justices.
The Judiciary’s web site summarized the issues argued:
On January 11, 2008, Respondents Craig Dobbin and