Thankfully, the only “Tiki Island” we have in Hawaii is a miniature golf course. Because the name “tiki” should be reserved for such things, or for kitschy bars, or Trader Vic-knockoffs.
And please, honest-to-goodness real municipalities should never be named Tiki Island. No matter how nice they appear to be.
Yesterday, we were able to attend the Ninth Circuit oral arguments in a case which we posted on last month, Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. 12-17749.
In that case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint filed by the owner of a wine country
This could be your view, winging your way to San Francisco in a couple of weeks, to join us for the 2015 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference (and the concurrent Condemnation 101 program), at the Hotel Nikko, February 5-7, 2015.
There’s still a few spaces left, and time to register. We’re the
The people of Margate City, New Jersey, voted to say “no thank you” to building dunes on the beach to limit damage in the event of another hurricane like Sandy were to hit.
But the State of New Jersey decided to do it anyway, and issued an administrative order “taking” an easement. Problem is
Professor Richard Epstein began the Hawaii Land Use Law Conference with the keynote presentation on “Stealth Takings: Exactions, Impact Fees, and More,” which was his usual comprehensive and non-stop takedown of takings law.
Our panel on Impact Fees and Exactions After Koontz followed, and here are
A short one (as usual) from the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.
The court’s opinion in New Creek Bluebelt, Phase 4 v. City of New York, No. D42909 (Nov. 19, 2014) is so brief, you should just read it yourself. But here are the highlights:
Major interstate highway bridge construction nearby resulted in homeowners suing ODOT for inverse condemnation because “extreme noise, pounding and vibrations” caused their home (red arrow) to be uninhabitable. The Ohio Court of Claims granted ODOT summary judgment, and the property owners appealed.
The homeowners argued that the trial court applied the wrong standard, and should
You regulatory takings mavens know the “denominator” issue. It first came into our collective consciousness in the Penn Central case, where the Supreme Court concluded, among other things, that the property to be analyzed for regulatory takings purposes was not just Penn Central’s air rights, or even the parcel which it wanted to develop. Instead
Here’s one of the decisions we’ve been meaning to post for a while.
In Schmude Oil Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Envt’l Quality, No. 313475 (July 1, 2014), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that there was no wipeout per se taking, nor was there a Penn Central taking, when the DEQ refused to
Registration is now open for the 2015 Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, to be held in downtown Honolulu on Thursday-Friday, January 15-16, 2015.
This is the bi-annual conference, co-chaired by U. Hawaii lawprof David Callies and land use lawyer Ben Kudo, that brings together the big names in our area of law. In other