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
: inversecondemnationHawaii Supreme Court: No Per Se Rule In Pretextual Takings
By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
It's pretty easy to blog about cases in which your side prevails, but not so easy when you don't. This post is one of the latter instances. In County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd. P'ship, No. 29887 (Nov. 10, 2010), a unanimous court in an opinon authored by Justice Acoba concluded:
This case is the post-remand sequel to County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P?ship, 119 Hawaii 352, 198 P.3d 615 (2008) [hereinafter, Coupe I]. In that case, this court reviewed two condemnation actions (Condemnation 1 and Condemnation 2) brought by Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee County of Hawaii (the County) to condemn property belonging to Defendant/ Counterclaimant-Appellant C&J Coupe Family Limited Partnership in Civ. No. 00-1-0181K and Defendant/Counterclaimant/Cross Claimant-Appellant in Civ. No. 05-1-015K (Coupe). In the instant appeal, we hold that (1) the County?s asserted public purpose for Condemnation 2 was not a pretext for a primarily private benefit, (2) Coupe?s challenge to the value of just compensation set for the property in Condemnation 2 could not be considered on remand, (3) the circuit court of the third circuit (the court) erred in denying Coupe?s request for attorneys? fees associated with the preparation of billing records and/or preparation of Coupe?s fee petitions for the failed Condemnation 1, and (4) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Coupe?s request for prejudgment interest on attorneys? fees and other expenses incurred in Condemnation 1. Therefore, we affirm the court?s conclusion that Condemnation 2 was not pretextual, its valuation of just compensation set for the property in Condemnation 2, and its denial of Coupe?s request for prejudgment interest. We remand to the court to decide Coupe?s request for attorneys? fees associated with the preparation of billing records and/or preparation of Coupe?s fee petitions in Condemnation 1.
Slip op. at 1-2.
Will there be more? Stay tuned.
Full post as published by inversecondemnation on November 10, 2010 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Copyright Lawsuits: Critical Issues Before Filing Copyright
Federa Rule 11(b) Considerations
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Menu Food
$240,000 settlement reached in Hawaii class action contaminated pet food suit.
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation
Tomato Salmonella
Sheetz Convenience Stores agrees to confidential out-of-court settlement with food poisoning victim.
National Association of Realtors
Settlement reached in broker listing antitrust lawsuit, pending court approval.
Missouri Attorney General's Office
$26,000 settlement reached in disability discrimination lawsuit, pending court approval.

Richard Epstein on the Didden Pretextual Takings Case:
Court Must Decide If Public Purpose Claimed for Road Was Pretextual
Supreme Court Rules in Stop the Beach
Opinion Recap: Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Judicial Takings--Back to the Supreme Court
Patashnik on Physical Takings, Regulatory Takings, and Water Rights








