Final Brief In Land Court Registration Case
by Robert Thomas, InverseCondemnation.com, November 4, 2013
Here's the State's Reply Brief supporting its application for cert and responding to the landowner's BIO in the land court registration case, In re Campbell. The brief argues that "[t]his is no minor land dispute," and "that the State is very concerned about the ICA Opinion."
What's so important about the State's claimed reservation of mineral and metallic mines that had made it put up this kind of resistance? It's not like there's a whole lot of mining potential on Oahu's north shore (unless its big waves they're after). Scroll down to page 4 to get to what we suspect is the real gold that's at stake here: geothermal rights (something Hawaii probably has in abundance):
If this Court grants the State’s application for writ of certiorari, it will have to consider whether minerals and metallic mines were ever part of the “bundle of sticks” conveyed by a Kamehameha III Deed, which were used when the King sold his personal lands. ROA 87 at 15. The State claims minerals and metallic mines in the Subject Property through four original land grants, one of which is a Kamehameha III Deed. Id.
If this Court grants the State’s application for writ of certiorari, it may also consider whether geothermal rights are part of the minerals and metallic mines claimed by the State. ROA 87 at 15 fn.10.
Reply at 4.
Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief in the Court of Appeals in support of the property owner.
Petitioner State of Hawaii's Reply in Support of Application for Writ of Certiorari, In re Campbell, No. S...