Today, by a 3-2 vote, the Hawaii Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, 122 Haw. 34, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009), which held that “Act 73” (codifed here and here) was a taking. [Disclosure:
Vested rights
You Take It, You Bought It
Comes news that the State Land Use Commission has reclassified a large portion of state-owned land in east Oahu from “urban” to “conservation.” See Ka Iwi shoreline area reclassified as conservation land (via Hawaii News Now) and Ka Iwi coast gets added protection (via the Honolulu Advertis…Honolulu Star-Advertiser). The reports state the…
Another Brief Seeking Reconsideration Of HAWSCT’s Kuilima/Turtle Bay Supplemental EIS Opinion
By Robert H. Thomas on
Here’s the latest development in the reconsideration process in the Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS case, Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 28602 (Apr. 8, 2010).
As we noted earlier, Kuilima Resort Company filed a motion asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to reconsider or clarify its opinion in the case.
Final (Final) Briefs In Hawaii Beach Taking Case: Is “Future” Accretion A Present Property Interest?
A couple of days ago, we posted “Final Briefs In Hawaii Beach Takings Case: Is ‘Future’ Accretion A Present Property Interest?” with what we thought was a complete set of the merits and amicus briefs filed in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175 (cert. application filed Apr.
Final Briefs In In Hawaii Beach Taking Case: Is “Future” Accretion A Present Property Interest?
Here are the latest filings in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175 (cert. application filed Apr. 22, 2010). In that case, the property owners are asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to review the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of …
Petition To Watch: Is A Littoral Owner Trespassing When The Shoreline Erodes?
SCOTUSblog has listed Sharp v. United States, No. 09-820 as a “petition to watch” for the Court’s conference today.
May 17, 2010 Update: cert. denied.
In that case, the property owners are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Milner, 583 …
Amicus Brief In Hawaii Beach Taking Case: “Future” Accretion Is A Present Property Interest
Yesterday, we filed this motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae and a copy of the proposed brief in support of the application for writ of certiorari which asks the Hawaii Supreme Court to review the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii…
Cert Application In Hawaii Beach Taking Case: Legislative Reassignment To The State Of The Right To Future Accretion Is A Taking
The property owners have filed an application for a writ of certiorari asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to review the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, 122 Haw. 34, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009).
Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting…
Federal Government’s Brief In Opposition In Erosion Case: Is A Littoral Owner Trespassing When The Shoreline Erodes?
By Robert H. Thomas on
The Solicitor General has filed the federal government’s Brief in Opposition in Sharp v. United States, No. 09-820 (cert. petition filed Jan. 7, 2010) (Supreme Court docket entry here).
In that case, the property owners are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Milner, …
Was Ban On Palmyra Commercial Fishing A Taking Of The Right To Operate Seafood Processing Facilities?
At its upcoming April 30, 2010 conference, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the cert petition in a case we’ve been following since it was decided by the Court of Federal Claims. In Palmyra Pacific Seafoods, L.L.C. v. United States, No. 09-766 (cert. petition filed Dec. 28, 2009), the Court is presented with the…