Here are the cases Professor Callies and I discussed in today's session at ALI-ABA's Eminent Domain and Land Valuation conference:
- McCandless v. United States, 298 U.S. 242 (1936) - an offer of proof that irrigation water could be transported to the land was not too "remote and speculative," and should have been allowed in support of the property owner's contention that the highest and best use of the land taken was to grow sugar cane.
- Damon v. Hawaii, 194 U.S. 154 (1904) - when an ahupuaa patent includes the adjacent fisheries, the U.S. Constitution recognizes that interest as "property."
- Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) - when a private waterway, recognized as private property under Hawaii law, is modified by private effort and investement into a navigable waterway, the government can only impose a right of public access by condemnation.
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 463 U.S. 1323 (1984) - "Public use" is "coterminous" with the police power. Eminent domain is just another land-planning tool.
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) - the "substantially advance" test is not one of regulatory takings, but of due process.
- The Hawaii water law backstory to the "judicial takings" issue.