Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert

At Damon Key, we think that firms are best judged by their people. Ours are committed, energetic and enthusiastic. We relish challenges. We temper intelligence and determination with wisdom conferred by a healthy sense of humor, a variety of experiences and a worldview that includes devotion to community and friends. Our firm attracts some of the freshest, brightest talents in law.

Website: https://hawaiilawyer.com/
Follow:

Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert Blogs

Insurance Law Hawaii
Inverse Condemnation

Blog Authors

Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly
Robert Thomas

Latest from Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert

67-day bench trial. 84-page decision. Check out the Superior Court’s Tentative Statement of Decision in a case in which a property owner has successfully challenged the Town of Apple Valley’s attempt to take a private water company so the Town could operate it itself. There’s a lot going on, and to understand the decision you should understand the statutory requirements under which the case is operating. A California statute sets out the requirements for what…
Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Harrison v. Montgomery County, No. 20-4-51 (May 11, 2021). It’s short, readable. And, most importantly, involves a subject that’s near and dear: takings, and the myriad potential traps that await an unsuspecting property owner making such a claim. If you’ve ever asserted a takings claim, you know what we mean. The other side may argue you are too late (statute …
In this recent decision, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that when a condemnation is invalidated a court — but the condemnor has, by quick-take, already built the project for which it (wrongly) took the property — the owner is not limited to an inverse condemnation remedy (compensation), but may also bring a claim for plain-old trespass (ejectment). On the same day the court issued that ruling, it produced a second opinion in…
We’re hoping that someone can explain the Florida District Court of Appeal’s recent opinion in Bondar v. Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony, No. 4D19-2118 (May 5, 2021) in a way that makes sense other than the old apocryphal tale of “I don’t know why we do things this way, except that we’ve always done things this way.” Before we get to the details, a slight detour. This is another one of those cases…
https-i-ytimg-com-vi-q93it_f0uaq-hqdefault-jpg
OK, we get that law is a serious business and that one should never make light of others’ situations. Each person’s claim is important to them, at the very least. But after reading today’s Federal Circuit opinion (unpublished, nonprecedential) in Bench Creek Ranch, LLC v. United States, No. 20-2151 (May 7, 2021), we couldn’t help but make a couple of lighthearted movie references. First, the above clip from one of the “Bill and Ted”…
A lot of times, when the government has invaded and physically occupies private property, the owner wants a court to find a taking. That’s why a typical remedy in these situations is an inverse condemnation action alleging the occupation is a taking requiring the government to provide compensation. And the remedy the owner usually seeks is compensation or an order compelling the government to formally take the property. But in what circumstances does that remedy…