I promised back in this post to digest the Hawaii Supreme Court’s opinion in Colony Surf, Ltd. v. Director of the Dep’t of Planning and Permitting, No 26037 (Dec. 26, 2007). However, because the opinion is so opaque it is difficult to understand, and the issue so narrow, I never quite got around to
Vested rights
Eminent Domain and Land Use Round-up
- Professor Gideon Kanner comments on the Ninth Circuit’s recent Matsuda case in “When is an Unenforceable Contract to Condemn, Enforceable?.” I commented on the decision here and here.
- Today’s oral arguments in Missouri Supreme Court in the Tourkakis appeal, a case of an attempted taking for economic development, have been posted here
…
Deal Or No Deal: Ninth Circuit Says Honolulu May Have to Live Up to Its Eminent Domain Promises
I’ve had a chance to review Matsuda v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 06-15337 (Jan 14, 2008), a decision by the Ninth Circuit on the Contracts and Due Process clauses, but which also involves how local governments exercise the power of eminent domain. The case revolves around Chapter 38 of the Honolulu Revised…
More on Matsuda (Ninth Circuit)
By Robert H. Thomas on
Tim Sandefur at PLF on Eminent Domain adds his thoughts about Matsuda v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 06-15337 (Jan 14, 2008).
9th Cir. on Due Process and Contracts Clause
By Robert H. Thomas on
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued an opinion in Matsuda v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 06-15337 (Jan 14, 2008), a case involving the city’s repeal of Chapter 38, Honolulu’s version of the “land reform act” at issue in Midkiff, allowing the conversion of condominium leases to…
2007 in Review: Private Agreements and Public Process
These seemingly unrelated court decisions were tied together with a common thread: private agreements for the most part are not substitutes for public processes, whether it is eminent domain, rezoning, or the granting of permits.
Several courts determined that agreements in which government agreed with private parties to exercise eminent domain were invalid:
- One
…
Hawaii Supreme Court Clarifies When Nonconforming Uses May Be Discontinued and Resumed
By Robert H. Thomas on
I’ve finally had a chance to go back and digest Colony Surf, Ltd. v. Director of the Dep’t of Planning and Permitting, No 26037 (Dec. 26, 2007), the case in which the Hawaii Supreme Court held tha.
New HAWSCT Case on Nonconforming Use
By Robert H. Thomas on
The Hawaii Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Colony Surf, Ltd. v. Director of the Dep’t of Planning and Permitting, No 26037 (Dec. 26, 2007). The case involves the issue of “nonconforming uses.” More to follow after a chance to review.
Federal Court Dismisses Maui Vacation Rental Due Process Claims — Details
By Robert H. Thomas on
The US District Court for the District of Hawaii dismissed most of the counts of the Maui Vacation Rental Association’s complaint against the County of Maui. The court held that MVRA had the right to bring suit on behalf of its members, but dismissed — without leave to amend — the substantive and procedural due…
Federal Court Order Dismissing Maui Vacation Rental Due Process Claims
By Robert H. Thomas on
As noted here, the US District Court for the District of Hawaii dismissed most of the counts of the Maui Vacation Rental Association’s complaint against the County of Maui. Here’s the court’s written order.