Can the legislature adopt a law mandating that from here forward, upon an owner’s death, all of her property escheats to the State? Yes, according to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. Because the property is not “vested” in future heirs and “may never materialize,” the State is free to take it.
That’s the basic
This just in: the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175, a case we recently analyzed here.
We conclude that (1) Plaintiffs and the class they represent had no vested property rights to future accretions to their oceanfront land
With all that has been going on lately (SCOTUS arguments in the judicial takings case, New York’s courts issuing two big eminent domain decisions, etc.), we haven’t had the opportunity to summarize the oral argument in a very important Hawaii case.
Last month, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals heard arguments in the
This is Part II of our preview of the oral arguments in Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, the case in which the IntermediateCourt of Appeals held that unless the project changes, a supplementalEIS is not required under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Haw.Rev. Stat. ch. 343.
In this post
On Thursday, December 17, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. Hawaii time, the Hawaii Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu. Note: Justice Recktenwald is recused and Circuit Judge Derrick Chan will be taking his place.
This post will review the issues in the case, and provide
No, not that Sgt Pepper taught the band to play (that was 20 years ago).
On Tuesday, December 4, 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979). My Damon Key colleagues Charlie Bocken and Diane Hastert briefed and argued a challenge to over
Here’s a collection of some of the commentary about yesterday’s oral arguments in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection,No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009). The transcript is available here.
We’re continuing our summary of today’s oral arguments in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection,No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009). The transcript is available here.
The property owners’ argument summary is posted here, and the State’s argument is here.
Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief
We’re continuing our summary of the oral arguments in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection,No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009), the case in which theCourt is considering the theory of “judicial takings” and whether statecourts are constrained by the Fifth Amendment if they suddenly and dramatically change stateproperty
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection,No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009), the case in which theCourt is considering the theory of “judicial takings” and whether statecourts are constrained by the Fifth Amendment if they suddenly and dramatically change stateproperty