At 5 pm HST tomorrow, Wednesday, March 7, 2007, I will be on Jay Fidell’s Hawaii Public Radio program, KIPO FM 89.3 providing a few thoughts on potential constitutional problems with enacting retroactive, narrowly focused legislation. Hope you can tune in.
Update: podcast here.Continue Reading ▪ KIPO FM 89.3 – Hawaii Public Radio Appearance
Is the game over in the ninth inning, or is being ahead in the sixth good enough?
Federal civil rights law, 42 USC § 1988, provides that the “prevailing party” in a lawsuit to vindicate federal civil rights is entitled to collect attorneys fees from the loser. The right to own and make economically beneficial use of property is one of those federal civil rights, and land use and property issues are often litigated under 42 USC § 1983, so attorneys fees may be available to the winning party.
But what does it mean to be a “prevailing” party? On April 17, 2007, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in Struhs v. Wyner (No. 06-531) (docket listing here), a case that presents the issue of whether a party who wins a preliminary injunction — but ultimately loses the case — has “prevailed” within the meaning…
In Mt. San Jacinto Community College v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court addressed two constitutional issues regarding the quick-take process:
First, does a statutory property valuation date that occurs at the time the condemner deposits the probable compensation in court under section 1263.110, et seq. deny the property owner just compensation under the California Constitution when litigation in the eminent domain action is not expected to end until several years after the deposit is made?
Second, is the owner’s statutory waiver of rights after withdrawing the funds an unconstitutional condition on the statutorily required “prompt release” of the deposit?
“Quick-take” is the procedure under which condemnors obtain immediate possession of property upon a deposit of estimated compensation to the court. (The quick-take procedures are codified under Hawaii eminent domain law at Haw. Rev. Stat. § 101-28, -29, and -30.) The opinion details the history of…
Continue Reading ▪ Cal Supreme Court on “Quick Take” Procedures
Here is the unofficial transcript of the Feb. 15, 2007 oral arguments in County of Kauai ex rel. Nakazawa v. Baptiste,the appeal challenging the “Kauai v. Kauai” intragovernmental lawsuitinvolving 2004’s Ohana Kauai property tax Charter Amendment. The recording of the arguments is posted here.Continue Reading ▪ Transcript of Oral Arguments in Kauai Property Tax Appeal