§101-13 Exercise of power by county.
Whenever any county deems it advisable or necessary to exercise the right of
eminent domain in the furtherance of any governmental power, the proceedings
may be instituted as provided in section 101-14 after the governing authority
(county council, or other governing board in the case of an independent board
having control of its own funds) of the county has authorized such suit by
resolution duly passed, or adopted and approved, as the case may be. The
resolution, in the case of the city and county of Honolulu or an independent
board thereof, shall, after its introduction, be published in a daily newspaper
with the ayes and noes, once (Sundays and legal holidays excepted) at least
three days before final action upon it, and in the case of any other county or
an independent board thereof, be published in a newspaper with the ayes and
noes, at least one day (Sundays and legal holidays excepted), before final
action upon it. [L 1919, c 63, §1; am L 1923, c 48, §1; RL 1925, §815; am imp L
1933, c 98, §2; RL 1935, §57; RL 1945, §308; am L 1951, c 12, §1(h); RL 1955,
§8-11; HRS §101-13]
Revision Note
"County council" substituted for "board of
supervisors".
Case Notes
Ordinance relating to residential condominium leasehold
conversion did not entail the sort of impermissible delegation of the power of
eminent domain from the city council to city's department of housing and
community development that would violate this section. 76 H. 46, 868 P.2d
1193.
Notes of Decisions
Richardson v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 868 P.2d 1193 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 24× “, the city council, prescribed by HRS § 101-13 (1985), [19] to the City's Department of Housing and Community Development (the Department).”
Cnty. of Hawai'i v. C & J Coupe Fam. Ltd. P'ship, 198 P.3d 615 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 8× “" [11] Appellant cites HRS § 101-13 (1993), the statute *628 pertaining to the exercise of eminent domain powers by a county, which provides, in pertinent part as follows: Exercise of power by county.”
City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Sherman, 129 P.3d 542 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 12× “BACKGROUND On May 8, 2003, the City filed a complaint in eminent domain, pursuant to HRS § 101-13 *548 (1993), [5] in the circuit court of the first circuit, seeking condemnation of the leased-fee interests in the Admiral Thomas condominium complex.”
Young v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 630 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Haw. 2009).
· cites it 8× “” HRS § 101-13. That the City Council must determine whether the public purpose necessitates the exercise of eminent domain is confirmed in the City Charter, which provides: Section 3-110.”
City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Ing, 58 P.3d 1229 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 101-13 (1993) provides in relevant part that, [w]henever any county deems it advisable or necessary to exercise the right of eminent domain in the furtherance of any governmental power, the proceedings may be instituted as provided in [HRS § ] 101— 14 after the governing…”
City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Hsiung, 124 P.3d 434 (Haw. 2005).
“The City’s Initial and Amended Complaints On February 14, 2003, the City filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit against the Trustees to condemn certain leased fee interests in Kahala Beach pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 101-13 (1993). The City…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.