KAISER DEVELOPMENT, v. CITY CTY. OF HONOLULU

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Nos. 87-2689, 87-2690.

Attorney(S)

Barbara R. Banke and Jess S. Jackson, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants. Gideon Kanner, Burbank, Cal., for plaintiffs-intervenors. H. Bissell Carey, III and Steven L. Richards, Robinson Cole, Hartford, Conn., for defendant-appellee. Mary Gray Holt, Gail Ruderman Feuer, Deputy Attys. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for amici curiae; John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen. for the State of Cal.

Judges

Richard Harvey Chambers
Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain
Stephen S. Trott

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, AKA KACOR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; KAISER HAWAII KAI DEVELOPMENT CO., A NEVADA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS, AND RICHARD LYMAN, JR.; MATSUO TAKABUKI; MYRON B. THOMPSON; WILLIAM S. RICHARDSON; HENRY H. PETERS, JR., PLAINTIFFS/INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AKA KACOR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; KAISER HAWAII KAI DEVELOPMENT CO., A NEVADA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, AND RICHARD LYMAN, JR.; MATSUO TAKABUKI; MYRON B. THOMPSON; WILLIAM S. RICHARDSON; HENRY H. PETERS, JR., PLAINTIFFS/INTERVENORS,

The decision of the district court is affirmed for the reasons stated by Judge King in Kaiser Development Co. v. Honolulu, 649 F. Supp. 926 (D.Haw. 1986). We conclude that no other cases decided since the date of that decision change the validity of Judge King's reasoning or the result in this appeal. Among the cases we have considered are Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987); Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 107 S.Ct. 1232, 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987); Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City of Simi Valley, 882 F.2d 1398 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 1317, 108 L.Ed.2d 493 (1990); Hoehne v. County of San Benito, 870 F.2d 529, 533 (9th Cir. 1989); Lai v. City and County of Honolulu, 841 F.2d 301 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 560, 102 L.Ed.2d 586 (1989); Shelter Creek Dev. Corp. v. City of Oxnard, 838 F.2d 375 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 134, 102 L.Ed.2d 106 (1989); Herrington v. Sonoma County, 834 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir. 1987), modified, 857 F.2d 567, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 1557, 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989); Lake Nacimiento Ranch v. San Luis Obispo County, 830 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 79, 102 L.Ed.2d 55 (1989); Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449 (9th Cir. 1987), modified, 830 F.2d 968, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1043, 108 S.Ct. 775, 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988); Uffman v. Housing Finance and Development Corp., 760 P.2d 1115 (Hawaii 1988).

Our decision in the appeal from the directed verdict will be filed separately in an unpublished memorandum.

AFFIRMED.

Comments