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
: inversecondemnationHAWSCT To Hear Pretext And Private Benefit Appeal
By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
Today, the Hawaii Supreme Court filed this Order Granting and Accepting Application for Transfer (Dec. 21, 2009), in County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P'ship, transferring the appeal from the Intermediate Court of Appeals. [Disclosure: my Damon Key colleagues and I represent the property owners in this case.]
This is the property owners' appeal of the County of Hawaii's attempts to take a Kona family's property. The first round of appeals resulted in County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P'ship, 119 Haw. 352, 198 P.3d 615 (2008) (available here), which held that a property owner has a right to challenge the government's assertion that a taking is for public use. In reviewing a taking, courts have an obligation to take seriously a property owner's claim that the government's stated public purpose is a pretext masking its true purposes. The court held that substance matters, not form, when government adopts a resolution of taking. Id. at 383, 198 P.3d at 646.
The court held the trial court erroneously accepted the County?s stated purpose at "face value," and the "single fact that a project is a road does not per se make it a public road." Id. at 381, 198 P.3d at 643 (emphasis original). The court vacated the trial court?s approval of the taking, and remanded the case with instructions to "thoroughly consider" evidence of pretext and private benefit by examining the County?s "actual purposes," its "veracity," and by "look[ing] behind the government?s stated public purpose" with a "closer objective scrutiny of the justification being offered." Id. at 375, 198 P.3d at 638 (?[O]ur case law supports the proposition that a court can look behind the government?s stated public purpose.?).
After the remand from the Hawaii Supreme Court, the trial court again validated the taking, concluding there was "no evidence"of pretext or private benefit. This appeal challenges that ruling. The Opening Brief which we filed last month is available here.
Full post as published by inversecondemnation on December 21, 2009 (boomark / email).
Private Investigators and Detectives
Services Provided by Private Investigators
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Military Veterans Benefits, Part 3
Other Benefits
Pre-paid Leagal Services
What are Prepaid Legal Benefit Plans
Philip Morris
Loses Appeal, Will Pay Millions
VA Sets New Benefit Rules for Agent Orange-Related Ilnesses
Agent Orange-Related Ilnesses VA Sets New Benefit Rules
Asbestos Mesothelioma Victim Wins Appeal of $20 Million Asbestos Cancer Verdict
Asbestos Mesothelioma Victim Wins Appeal of $20 Million Asbestos Cancer Verdict
US Government
alleging land surveyors should not be allowed on private property to build a US Mexican border wall.
Lipitor
Review of Studies Show No Significant Benefit in Women
Utilities Whistleblower
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities agrees to $485,000 fine for setting up a private bank account.

Theres pretext and then theres pretext
Football Coach Asks Supreme Court to Hear Prayer Appeal
"Supreme Court to hear judge's ethics appeal"
"Court to hear 9/11 conspirator's appeal in Va."
Court Must Decide If Public Purpose Claimed for Road Was Pretextual
"W.Va. court won't hear appeal in Massey case"







