KA NU HOU

E-Mail Addresses

Since 1992, the Section has published a quarterly newsletter, Ka Nu Hou,which is distributed to all members of the Section. Ka Nu Hou has included articles of wide-ranging interest to our members, new developments and announcements from regulatory and administrative agencies, and discussion and analysis of new legislation. Ka Nu Hou has flourished because of the generous contribution of time by members willing to write articles of interest.

We will publish excerpts from recent issues and other news and developments here. If you would like to contribute an article or make a suggestion about articles to appear in future issues, click here to send us e-mail. Ka Nu Hou is published quarterly, each January 31, April 30, July 31 and October 31. The Chair Elect of the Section edits and publishes the four newsletters during his or her year as Chair Elect. You can contact Rodd H. Yano, this year's Chair-Elect if you want to subscribe to Ka Nu Hou, however members receive it by mail as part of their membership benefits.

Recent Cases

Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., No. 04-163, United States Supreme Court

Concerned about the effects of market concentration on retail gasoline prices, the Hawaii Legislature passed Act 257, which limits the rent oil companies may charge dealers leasing company-owned service stations. Respondent Chevron U. S. A. Inc., then one of the largest oil companies in Hawaii, brought this suit seeking a declaration that the rent cap effected an unconstitutional taking of its property and an injunction against application of the cap to its stations. Applying Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 260.where the Court declared that government regulation of private property effects a taking if [it] does not substantially advance legitimate state interests,
the District Court held that the rent cap effects an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because it does not substantially advance Hawaii.s asserted interest in controlling retail gas prices. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Held: Agins substantially advance[s] formula is not an appropriate test for determining whether a regulation effects a Fifth Amendment taking.

KELO ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL., No. 04-108, United States Supreme Court

After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners brought a state-court action claiming,that the taking of their properties would violate the “public use” restriction in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the some of the properties, but denying relief as to others. Relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229, and Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding all of the proposed takings. Held: The city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause.