Hawaii
How City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. applies in Hawaii: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law — Takings; Civil Rights (§1983); Land Use.
Hawaii courts typically align with the principles of substantive due process and just compensation under the state constitution while also considering local land use policies. The reasoning articulated in City of Monterey provides a framework for evaluating regulation impacts on property rights in Hawaii.
In Hawaii, a governmental regulation that denies a landowner economically viable use of their property could constitute a taking requiring just compensation under the Hawaii Constitution, Article I, Section 20.
The court held that a denial of a land use permit without sufficient justification constituted a de facto taking, requiring compensation.
The court ruled that the application of restrictive zoning ordinances could result in takings liability if the ordinances result in a total loss of property use.
The court found that a state legislative act aimed at land redistribution did not constitute a taking as it served a valid public purpose.
Hawaii's approach closely mirrors the federal standards set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases like City of Monterey, emphasizing protection against unjust takings. However, Hawaii courts may place greater emphasis on collective community interests and land use policies due to its unique cultural and geographical context.
Understanding Hawaii's application of takings principles as established in City of Monterey is crucial for the bar exam, particularly regarding land use cases that involve zoning and property rights.