Hawaii Housing Authority v. Lyman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[w]here the exercise of the eminent domain power is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose, a compensated taking is not proscribed by the public use clause” (citation omitted)
• noting that a police officer not able to render an opinion that a “substance was in fact cocaine,” still possessed the expertise “to state that the substance ‘appeared to be cocaine’ ”
• “the HHA as plaintiff-con-demnor will be the party bearing liability, if any, for the award”
• trial court has the discretion to weigh the potential for waste of judicial resources
• “In 1983 the legislature amended the Act to make explicit that the lessees shall be a party to proceedings under the Act and that they must be given the opportunity to present valuation evidence.”
• \In 1983 the legislature amended the Act to make explicit that the lessees shall be a party to proceedings under the Act and that they must be given the opportunity to present valuation evidence.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).