State v. Midkiff

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that in non-highway taking cases, special benefits may be set off against the value of the part taken and severance damages
• holding that in non-highway taking cases, special benefits may be setoff against the value of the part taken and severance damages
• “The state has urged that when a partial taking enhances the remainder lands by creating a reasonable probability of rezoning to a higher use, the remnant parcels may be specifically benefited by the taking. We agree.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Stahl v. Balsara
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1978-12-18· cited 46×
• City and County of Honolulu v. Market Place, Ltd.
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1973-12-14· cited 27×
• State, by Atty. Gen. v. Pioneer Mill Co.
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1981-12-18· cited 22×
• Vieau v. City and County of Honolulu
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 1982-11-09· cited 15×
• County of Hawai'i v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd.
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2010-11-10· cited 12×
• State v. Greenwell
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1973-12-13
• HART v. Ward
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2023-12-29

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. The Meadow Brook Club
  Second Circuit· 1958-12-15· cited 65×
• Territory of Hawaii v. Adelmeyer
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1961-07-19· cited 59×
• State Highway Commission v. Bailey
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1957-12-31· cited 40×
• Max Wolff v. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Etc.
  First Circuit· 1965-03-05· cited 36×
• State v. Davis
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1972-07-20· cited 20×
• Territory of Hawaii v. Mendonca
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 1962-09-20· cited 11×