SCOTUSblog has designated West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), as a petition to watch for today’s conference.
That’s the case which asks whether the nexus and “rough proportionality” tests for a regulatory taking in Nollan and Dolan are limited to government
Hold the date: on Tuesday, December 6, 2011, from 5:30 – 8:00 p.m., the University of Hawaii School of Law is sponsoring a reception at the Pacific Club, in Honolulu to celebrate the publication of Eminent Domain, a Handbook of Condemnation Law by the American Bar Association.
Since so many of the people who worked
Hold the presses! In an unusual move spurred by a recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court, the petitioner has filed a supplemental brief in West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), the case which asks whether the nexus and “rough
Yesterday we filed the Star-Advertiser‘s brief responding to Governor Abercrombie’s cross-motion for summary judgment in the case in which the Star-Advertiser seeks disclosure of the JSC list from the Governor. (We represent the Star-Advertiser.) The hearing on these motions is scheduled for November 14, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.ext
Previously filed documents: the Complaint
We’ve been thinking a lot about exactions lately.
First, it was the petition for certiorari in West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), which asks whether the nexus and “rough proportionality” tests for a regulatory taking in Nollan and Dolan are limited
This just in: on November 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether it has found the vehicle to resolve an issue the lower courts have vehemently disagreed upon, whether the Nollan/Dolan nexus/rough proportionality analysis is limited to exactions of real property. See West Linn Corporate Park, LLC v. City of West
Here’s an article I recently published in the Zoning and Planning Law Report, Recent Developments in Regulatory Takings Law: What Counts as “Property?”, 34 Zoning & Planning Law Report (Thomson | West 2011).
If you subscribe to ZPLR, look for it in the mail (and if you don’t, you should).
If you are
Governor Abercrombie filed his opposition to the Star-Advertiser‘s motion for summary judgment, and his own cross-motion for summary judgment in the case in which the Star-Advertiser seeks disclosure of the JSC list from the Governor. The exhibits attached to these documents are posted here. [Disclosure: we represent the Star-Advertiser.] The hearing on
You remember the Hawaii Superferry, don’t you? In case your memory doesn’t go back that far, here are our posts on the Hawaii Supreme Court’s first opinion, and here are our thoughts on the second. What brings up this case now is then-Governor (and present U.S. Senate candidate) Linda Lingle’s recent statement, quoted by Honolulu
“Yosemite,” according to California Place Names, Erwin Gudde’s seminal work on the origins of (surprise) California place names, means “they are killers.” It was “[e]vidently a name given to the Indians of the valley by those outside it.”
I raise this historical tidbit because I must admit to feeling a little like “those outside
