The Federalist Societyhas posted a podcast of my Pacific Legal Foundation colleague Jim Burling discussing Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009):
If that doesn’t work for you, go here to download the mp3.
The Stop the Beach Renourishment case, which has been
Recently, the owners of vacation cabins located on leased land in a state park on the island of Kauai filed a cert petition which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review an unpublished decision of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals which held that the State did not run afoul of the Takings Clause when
The most recent edition of State & Local Law News has an article summarizing the arguments in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009).
That case, which has been argued and is currently awaiting disposition by the Supreme Court, asks whether a state
Both parties have asked the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals to take another look at its opinion in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175 (Dec. 30, 2009).
In that case, the court held (1) the Hawaii Legislature took existing littoral accretion when it assigned ownership of the accretion from
Many years ago I got a parking ticket, my first. Here’s the story: when I left the car, it was a legal space, no meter. In the few hours I was away, the city public works department erected a “no parking” sign and painted the curb red. The police were equally efficient, and by the
This post deals with the practical impacts of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii,No. 28175 (Dec. 30, 2009). [Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting the property owners,available here.]
First, some background for those who have not been following our recent
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