Vested rights

Just in case you wanted even more to read tonight before tomorrow’s Hawaii Supreme Court oral arguments in the Hawaii Superferry appeal redux, posted below is a nearly complete set of briefs. Some are upwards of 2 MB, so you — and your internet service provider — have been duly warned.

Believe it or not

Another reminder: tomorrow morning, the “Hawaii Superferry” litigation is back in the Hawaii Supreme Court Round 2, with oral arguments scheduledto commence at 9 a.m.  I’ll be attending the arguments, and technology and typing skills permitting, live blogging it.

Visit this page to sign up for an email reminder, or just visit at 8:45

A worthwhile article in the latest edition of The Urban Lawyer about settling land use disputes with processes that may not adhere strictly to the usual permit consideration procedures.  Here’s the summary from the ABA’s site:

Paul D. Wilson, Of Synagogues and Nude Juice Bars: Can a Municipality Settle Land Use Litigation Without a

You snooze, you lose.  That’s the lesson from Turnacliff v. Westly, No. 07-15287 (Oct. 15, 2008), where the Ninth Circuit rejected a claim that California’s escheat statute, which sets a rate for interest on abandoned property, violated the Takings Clause.  The owner whose abandoned property was eventually returned (with statutory interest) claimed that the

The California Court of Appeals, Second District (Los Angeles) today struck down a municipal moratorium on development, which in some cases prevented landowners from developing their properties for 30 years:

We conclude that the resolution, by implementing the moratorium and continuing to prevent plaintiffs from building on their properties, “deprive[d] [plaintiffs’] land of all economically

To those who attended the workshop at the University of Hawaii law school, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Laws: Reclaiming the Past, Shaping the Future, thank you.  Here are links to the cases I mentioned in my presentation.