The circuit court has scheduled the next steps in County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, No. 28882 (Haw. Dec. 24, 2008), the case in which the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the government must pay damages to a property owner when an attempt to take property by eminent domain
California Court of Appeal: No TKO Of Eminent Domain Challenge (Video)
A delay in publication of a legal notice won’t knock out a challenge to the legality of a city’s blight designation.
In Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City, No. D052584 (Jan. 22, 2009), the California Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed
Book Review: Supreme Neglect – How To Revive Constitutional Protection For Private Property
I’ve finally had the chance to read a book I ordered a while ago, Professor Richard Epstein’s Supreme Neglect – How To Revive Constitutional Protection For Private Property (Oxford Press 200__).
State & Local Government Condemnation Committee Links
Here are links to the cases discussed on the conference call this morning:
- County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, No. 28882 (Dec. 24, 2008) – public use, pretext, and damages for failed taking
The majority opinion by Justice Acoba, joined by Justices Nakayama and Duffy is posted here:
We hold that (1) a landowner in a condemnationaction is entitled to damages under HRS § 101-27 where the property atissue is not finally taken in the context of a particular condemnationproceeding, irrespective of whether the government attempts to take theland through subsequent condemnation proceedings; (2) abatement doesnot apply where the relief sought in two concurrent actions is not thesame; and (3) although our courts afford substantial deference to thegovernment’s asserted public purpose for a taking in a condemnationproceeding, where there is evidence that the asserted purpose ispretextual, courts should consider a landowner’s defense of pretext. Therefore, (1) automatic denial of statutory damages under HRS §101-27in Condemnation 1 is vacated and the case remanded for a determinationof damages, (2) the court’s conclusion that Condemnation 2 was notabated by Condemnation 2 is vacated and the case remanded for adetermination of whether the public purpose asserted in Condemnation 2was pretextual.
Slip op. at 5. Here’s the concurring and dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Moon joined by Justice Levinson. The briefs in the case are available here: Opening Brief, Answering Brief of the County of Hawaii, Reply Brief. Disclosure: we represent the property owner.
- The Ninth Circuit’s decision in West Linn Corporate Park, LLC v. City of West Linn, Nos. 05-36061, 05-46062 (9th Cir. July 28, 2008) (regulatory takings case removed to US District Court, Ninth Circuit certified questions to Oregon Supreme Court)
- SCOTUS Williamson County ripeness cert petitions (Braun, Agripost, Pratt)
- Aspen Creek Estates, Ltd. v. Town of Brookhaven (New York Court of Appeals – arguments on municipality’s ability to take property purportedly to preserve farmland)
- Kamaole Pointe – Maui affordable housing exaction
Continue Reading State & Local Government Condemnation Committee Links
Owners’ Counsel Of America
I’m honored to have been designated as the Hawaii member of the Owners’ Counsel of America. OCA is “a voluntary network of experienced eminent domain attorneys from every state of the nation, representing property owners facing condemnation or other infringement on their constitutional rights to own property, and dedicated to advancing the cause of
New York Court Of Appeals To Hear Appeal Challenging Reason For Taking
Thanks to Professor Patty Salkin’s Law of the Land blog for letting us know that on January 14, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals (that state’s highest court) will be hearing oral arguments in Aspen Creek Estates, Ltd. v. Town of Brookhaven, a case challenging a municipality’s ability to take property. Professor Salkin
At The ALI-ABA Conference On Eminent Domain And Land Valuation
Currently at the annual conference on eminent domain law – as always, well worth attending.
In the morning’s session, Professor Kanner mentioned the recent decision in County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, No. 28882 (Dec. 24, 2008), which has not yet been published in the official reporters. The slip
2008 Land Use In Review: Public Use And Pretext In Eminent Domain
One of the bigger developments, at least in Hawaii law, came in the last week of the year. We’re talking about the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, No. 28882 (Dec. 24, 2008) (and we’re not just hailing the case because we’re the attorneys
Thank You, Star-Bulletin: Corrections And Clarifications
Following up on this post, where we pointed out several errors in a headline and subheadline in a Honolulu Star-Bulletin story on the Hawaii Supreme Court’s landmark eminent domain decision in County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, No. 28882 (Dec. 24, 2008), the Star-Bulletin has posted corrections and
Headline On Kona Condemnation Cases – Not In The Ballpark
I usually try to not take too seriously the headlines attached to a newspaper story or op-ed. After all, an editor — and not the reporter or op-ed author — may have written the headline, and it may be designed to grab a reader’s attention or focus on a part of the story the editor