Vested rights

Subscribe to Vested rights via RSS

Here are the latest filings in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175 (cert. application filed Apr. 22, 2010). In that case, the property owners are asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to review the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, 122 Haw. 34, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009), which held that “Act 73” (codifed here and here) was a taking. [Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief in the ICA supporting the property owners, and recently filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court – see below].

In Act 73, the legislature declared that title to shoreline land naturally accreted cannot be registered by anyone except the State, and that only the State could quiet title to accreted land. The ICA held that the Act was a taking of accreted land…

Continue Reading Final Briefs In In Hawaii Beach Taking Case: Is “Future” Accretion A Present Property Interest?

SCOTUSblog has listed Sharp v. United States, No. 09-820 as a “petition to watch” for the Court’s conference today.

May 17, 2010 Update: cert. denied.

In that case, the property owners are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v.  Milner, 583 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2009), which held that a littoral owner was liable for trespass in waters held by the federal government for the benefit of the Lummi Nation, and for violation of the Rivers and Harbors Act formaintaining a “shore defense structure.” The structure was built onprivate fast (dry) land, but the shoreline eventually eroded up to it.

In the opinion, detailed in this post, the Ninth Circuit held that “both the tideland owner and the upland owner have a right to anambulatory boundary, and each has a vested right in the potential…

Continue Reading Petition To Watch: Is A Littoral Owner Trespassing When The Shoreline Erodes?

Yesterday, we filed this motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae and a copy of the proposed brief in support of the application for writ of certiorari which asks the Hawaii Supreme Court to review the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, 122 Haw. 34, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009).

In Maunalua Bay, the ICA held that “Act 73” (codifed here and here) was a taking. In the Act, the legislature declared that title to shoreline land naturally accreted cannot be registered by anyone except the State, and that only the State could quiet title to accreted land.

The ICA, however, held that the Act was a taking only of existing accreted land, but was not a taking of what the ICA called “future accretions.” The court held that because “future” accretion might…

Continue Reading Amicus Brief In Hawaii Beach Taking Case: “Future” Accretion Is A Present Property Interest

The property owners have filed an application for a writ of certiorari asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to review the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, 122 Haw. 34, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009).

Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting the property owners in the ICA, available here, and will be submitting a motion for leave to file an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to accept the application for cert.

In its opinion, the ICA held that “Act 73” (codifed here and here) was a taking. In the Act, the legislature declared that title to shoreline land naturally accreted cannot be registered by anyone except the State, and that only the State could quiet title to accreted land. The ICA held that the Act was a taking of existing accreted land, but…

Continue Reading Cert Application In Hawaii Beach Taking Case: Legislative Reassignment To The State Of The Right To Future Accretion Is A Taking

The Solicitor General has filed the federal government’s Brief in Opposition in Sharp v. United States, No. 09-820 (cert. petition filed Jan. 7, 2010) (Supreme Court docket entry here).

In that case, the property owners are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v.  Milner, 583 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2009), which held that a littoral owner was liable for trespass in waters held by the federal government for the benefit of the Lummi Nation, and for violation of the Rivers and Harbors Act formaintaining a “shore defense structure.” The structure was built onprivate fast (dry) land, but the shoreline eventually eroded up to it.

In the opinion, detailed in this post, the Ninth Circuit held that “both the tideland owner and the upland owner have a right to anambulatory boundary, and each has a vested right in the…

Continue Reading Federal Government’s Brief In Opposition In Erosion Case: Is A Littoral Owner Trespassing When The Shoreline Erodes?

At its upcoming April 30, 2010 conference, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the cert petition in a case we’ve been following since it was decided by the Court of Federal Claims. In Palmyra Pacific Seafoods, L.L.C. v. United States, No. 09-766 (cert. petition filed Dec. 28, 2009), the Court is presented with the following Questions Presented:

1.  Are private contracts property protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution?

2.  Assuming that private contracts are property protected by the Takings Clause, is the federal government liable for regulatory as well as appropriative takings of private contracts?

The CFC and the Federal Circuit both rejected the claim that the Secretary of the Interior’s designation of the waters surrounding Palmyra and Kingman Reef as National Wildlife Refuges and attendant commercial fishing ban was a taking of Palmyra Pacific Seafood’s exclusive licenses to operate commercial fish processing…

Continue Reading Was Ban On Palmyra Commercial Fishing A Taking Of The Right To Operate Seafood Processing Facilities?

When one lawyer writes that another is “my friend and colleague,” watch out: what follows may not be exactly friendly or collegial. For legal academics, the rule is even more pronounced when the friend-and-colleague’s name shows up in the title of an article.

In that vein, we bring you the latest chapter in the ongoing debate about “background principles” in regulatory takings analysis. In Background Principles, Takings, and Libertarian Property: A Response to Professor Huffman (posted on SSRN here), lawprofs Michael C. Blumm and J.B. Ruhl respond to Professor James Huffman’s critique of their work.

A short refresher. The “background principles” issue was spawned by Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, 505 U.S. 1003 (1995), the case in which the Court held that a regulation takes property when it deprives a property owner of “economically beneficial or productive use of land,” even if the government’s reasons for enacting…

Continue Reading Be Careful Of Lawprofs Bearing Praise: Another Chapter In The “Background Principles” Debate

Courtesy of the New York Times is the backstory of Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009). This, of course, is the “judicial takings” case that was argued in the Supreme Court last December, and is now awaiting disposition (our summary page contains links to the briefs — including the amicus brief we filed — and other case materials).

And when the Times goes back, it really goes back:

The sands found Destin first. They started off eons ago, from the Appalachian Mountains, washing their way down the rivers that flow into the Gulf of Mexico. Winnowed to pure, hardy quartz, the sediment moved with the gulf’s currents and gathered into the necklace of narrow barrier islands that buffer Florida’s Panhandle. Time and tides refined the sand into a soft, sun-bleached powder. By the 1830s, when a Yankee…

Continue Reading Behind The Music: Stop The Beach Renourishment And Judicial Takings

Technology permitting, we are live blogging today’s oral arguments in Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon,No. A-49-09 (certification granted Nov. 10, 2009).

That’s the case in which the New Jersey Supreme Court is reviewing the decision from the AppellateDivision which held that the government can assert inverse condemnationin order to take property without compensation. (If that leaves you scratching your head, you are not alone — the New Jersey Law Journal called the decision “a bizarre condemnation.” More about the case here, including links to the Appellate Division’s per curiam opinion and the merits and amici briefs.

The court’s web site states the issue simply:

May a municipality occupy a property and obtain title through inverse condemnation without initiating condemnation proceedings under the Eminent Domain Act, N.J.S.A. 20:3-1 to -50?

Arguments are set to begin at 11:00 a.m., Monday, March 22, 2010 in Trenton. Although we are…

Continue Reading Live Blog Of New Jersey Supreme Court Oral Argument In Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon (The “Bizarre Condemnation”)

Barista’s note: we posted a version of this story before, on the 30th anniversary of the date the Court issued the opinion (December 4, 2009), but thought we would reprint a more detailed view, recently published in our firm’s newsletter, complete with photos.

Damon Key Celebrates Thirtieth Anniversary of Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Victory

What do you call a court opinion that has been cited by 627 othercourts, expressly followed in 42 cases, distinguished in 24 others, andhas been cited 1,041 times in law reviews and 147 times in legaltreatises?

We call it a landmark.

In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Courtissued its decision in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, a truly landmarkcase, argued and won by Damon Key attorneys Charlie Bocken and DianeHastert.

DDH_RCB_hawaii_kai Onbehalf of the developer of Hawaii Kai, Charlie and Diane took on thefederal government and overturned over a century of seemingly adverseprecedent. Kaiser Aetna was the…

Continue Reading More On The Thirtieth Anniversary Of Kaiser Aetna