Kaiser Development Co. v. City & County of Honolulu

Ninth Circuit

Kaiser Development Co. v. City & County of Honolulu

898 F.2d 112, 1990 WL 28986

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 21, 1990

DocketNos. 87-2689, 87-2690

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 898 F.2d 112 (Kaiser Development Co. v. City & County of Honolulu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kaiser Development Co. v. City & County of Honolulu, 898 F.2d 112, 1990 WL 28986 (9th Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

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Our decision in the appeal from the directed verdict will be filed separately in an unpublished memorandum.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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Kaiser Development Company, AKA Kacor Development Company, a California Corporation Kaiser Hawaii Kai Development Co., a Nevada Corporation, 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, Kaiser Development Company AKA Kacor Development Company, a California Corporation Kaiser Hawaii Kai Development Co., a Nevada Corporation, and Richard Lyman, Jr. Matsuo Takabuki Myron B. Thompson William S. Richardson Henry H. Peters, Jr., Plaintiffs/intervenors v. City and County of Honolulu, a Municipal Corporation

898 F.2d 112 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

898 F.2d 112, 1990 WL 28986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaiser-development-co-v-city-county-of-honolulu-ca9-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack