Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8986606
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Kaiser Development Co. v. City & County of Honolulu
No. 8986606 · Decided March 21, 1990
No. 8986606·Ninth Circuit · 1990·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
March 21, 1990
Citation
No. 8986606
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
The decision of the district court is affirmed for the reasons stated by Judge King in Kaiser Development Co. v. Honolulu, 649 F.Supp. 926 (D.Haw.1986). We conclude that no other cases decided since the date of that decision change the validity of Judge King’s reasoning or the result in this appeal. Among the cases we have considered are Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 , 107 S.Ct. 3141 , 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987); Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 , 107 S.Ct. 1232 , 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987); Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass’n v. City of Simi Valley, 882 F.2d 1398 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1317 , 108 L.Ed.2d 493 (1990); Hoehne v. County of San Benito, 870 F.2d 529, 533 (9th Cir.1989); Lai v. City and County of Honolulu, 841 F.2d 301 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 560 , 102 L.Ed.2d 586 (1989); Shelter Creek Dev. Corp. v. City of Oxnard, 838 F.2d 375 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 134 , 102 L.Ed.2d 106 (1989); Herrington v. Sonoma County, 834 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir.1987), modified, 857 F.2d 567 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989); Lake Nacimiento Ranch v. San Luis Obispo County, 830 F.2d 977 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 79 , 102 L.Ed.2d 55 (1989); Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449 (9th Cir.1987), modified, 830 F.2d 968 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1043 , 108 S.Ct. 775 , 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988); Uffman v. Housing Finance and Development Corp., 760 P.2d 1115 (Hawaii 1988). Our decision in the appeal from the directed verdict will be filed separately in an unpublished memorandum. AFFIRMED.
Plain English Summary
The decision of the district court is affirmed for the reasons stated by Judge King in Kaiser Development Co.
Key Points
01The decision of the district court is affirmed for the reasons stated by Judge King in Kaiser Development Co.
02We conclude that no other cases decided since the date of that decision change the validity of Judge King’s reasoning or the result in this appeal.