Of the eight court cases filed by Bishop Estate and Kaiser, just one (84-0389) has been litigated. The outcome of that lawsuit, appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, was in favor of the city. U.S. District Judge Samuel P. King determined that the plaintiffs had not proved that the city’s action left them with no economic use of the property.
Despite the city’s victory in federal court, attorneys with the Corporation Counsel’s office have argued that it is likely that the city would, at the very least, have to allow development of a golf course at Queen’s Beach. Also, from a legal viewpoint, the city’s position would seem to be weakest in the cases filed over downzoning of Golf Course 5 and 6, since the developers had received the last discretionary permit needed for advancing with their plans at the time the downzoning occurred.
In Federal Court:
Case No. 84-0388 Plaintiff-Kaiser* At Issue – Golf Course 2/IA
Case No. 84-0389 Plaintiff- Kaiser* At Issue – Queens Beach
Case No. 84-0448 Plaintiff- Bishop Estate At Issue – Golf Course 2/IA
Case No. 84-0449 Plaintiff- Bishop Estate At Issue – Queens Beach
In State Court: B
Case No. 84-0357-02 Plaintiff-Bishop Estate At Issue – Queens Beach
Case No. 88-3767-12 Plaintiff- Kaiser At Issue – Queens Beach
Case No. 89-3540-11 Plaintiff- Bishop Estate At Issue – Golf Course 5 and 6
Case No. 89-3539-11 Plaintiff- Kaiser At Issue – Golf Course 5 and 6
*The initial plaintiff was Kaiser Development Company, which has undergone several name changes over the years (Kacor Development Company, Kaiser Hawai`i Kai Development Co., Hawai`i Kai Development Co., and, since January 1996, Maunalua Associates, Inc.).
Volume 6, Number 8 February 1996
Leave a Reply