Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Real Estate & Property Law Blogs -> inversecondemnation
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Real Estate & Property Law
: inversecondemnationMerits Briefs in Upcoming ICA Appeal on Kuilima Resort Environmental Impact Statement
By rht
On April 9, 2008, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals will be hearing oral arguments in Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 28603, the appeal involving the question of whether the City should have required the Kuilima Resort to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Here are the main merits briefs of the parties:
Opening Brief (2.5mb pdf)
City's Answering Brief (1.3mb pdf)
- Kuilima_Resort's Answering Briefs (3mb pdf)
The issue, as stated by the Appellants:
Does the Hawai'i Environmental Protection Act (HEPA) [Haw. Rev. Stat. § 343-1, et seq.] and the Environmental Council Rules (HEPA Rules) obligate a public agency to determine whether a project requires a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Supplemental EIS or SEIS) where new circumstances and evidence bring to light likely increased environmental impacts not previously dealt with in the project's twenty-two (22) year old EIS?
Opening Brief at 1. The Resort, naturally, phrases the issue somewhat differently:
Plaintiffs challenge Kuilima's development Project, which the City and State entitled in 1986 based in part on the EIS. Since the entitlements, and until this litigation began in January 2006, the Project proceeded forward. Plaintiffs emphasized at the trial level that the lapse in time from 1986, without completion of the Project, is a "change" in the Project that, coupled with alleged changes in the regional environment over that time, requires an SEIS. Plaintiffs continue to rely on alleged regional changes in environmental conditions since the acceptance of the EIS, but now argue that those changes, by themselves, form a stand-alone basis to require an SEIS under the last sentence of HRS [sic] § 11-200-27. This misinterpretation of the SEIS Rules is just another argument that the lapse of time is enough to require an SEIS. [footnote omitted]
Kuilima Resort's Answering Brief at 1.
Full post as published by inversecondemnation on April 04, 2008 (boomark / email).
Class Action Filed Over Incontinence Briefs
Arizona Health Care Faces Federal Class Action over Incontinence Briefs
Mirrors
Recalled Due to Impact and Laceration Hazards
Philip Morris
Loses Appeal, Will Pay Millions
Venetian Resort
Faces Overtime Class Action
Asbestos Mesothelioma Victim Wins Appeal of $20 Million Asbestos Cancer Verdict
Asbestos Mesothelioma Victim Wins Appeal of $20 Million Asbestos Cancer Verdict
Environmental Pollution
Asarco LLC pays $14 million for contamination settlements.

First Set of Merits Briefs in Philip Morris v. Williams III
Environmental impact analysis underway for South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan
Is Winter v. NRDC an agency politicization case







