ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Real Estate & Property Law Blogs -> inversecondemnation

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Real Estate & Property Law

: inversecondemnation

Hawaii Supreme Court: No Per Se Rule In Pretextual Takings

By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)

ADVERTISEMENTS
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).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0129 secs (new cache)