• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
No. 08-1151
================================================================
 In The
Supreme Court of the United States
---------------------------------
♦
---------------------------------STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT, INC.,
 Petitioner,
v.FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THEINTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND,WALTON COUNTY, and CITY OF DESTIN,
 Respondents.
---------------------------------
♦
---------------------------------
On Writ Of Certiorari To TheFlorida Supreme Court
---------------------------------
♦
---------------------------------
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER AND BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF OWNERS’ COUNSELOF AMERICA IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
---------------------------------
♦
---------------------------------R
OBERT
H. T
HOMAS
 
Counsel of Record
 M
 ARK 
M. M
URAKAMI
 T
RED
R. E
 YERLY
 D
 AMON
K 
EY
L
EONG
 K 
UPCHAK 
H
 ASTERT
 1003 Bishop Street, 16th FloorHonolulu, Hawaii 96813(808) 531-8031www.hawaiilawyer.com
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
 ================================================================
COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
 
1
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 37, Owners’Counsel of America requests leave of the Court to filethis brief amicus curiae in support of Petitioner. Amicus requests leave to file this brief outsidethe time established in Rule 37.3(a) becauseundersigned counsel of record who was principallyresponsible for producing this brief experienced boththe death of an immediate family member andconcurrently contracted a severe case of adult chickenpox which resulted in hospitalization. Counsel of record for both Petitioner and Respondents werenotified of the above circumstances and informedamicus they have no objection to the filing of thisbrief.September 2009.R
OBERT
H. T
HOMAS
 
Counsel of Record
M
 ARK 
M. M
URAKAMI
 
T
RED
R. E
 YERLY
 
D
 AMON
K 
EY
L
EONG
 K 
UPCHAK 
H
 ASTERT
 
1003 Bishop Street, 16th FloorHonolulu, Hawaii 96813(808) 531-8031www.hawaiilawyer.com
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
 
 
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
 The Florida Supreme Court invoked “nonexistentrules of state substantive law” to reverse 100 years of uniform holdings that littoral rights are constitu-tionally protected. In doing so, did the Florida Court’sdecision cause a “judicial taking” proscribed by theFifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the UnitedStates Constitution?Is the Florida Supreme Court’s approval of alegislative scheme that eliminates constitutional lit-toral rights and replaces them with statutory rightsa violation of the due process clauses of the Fifthand Fourteenth Amendments to the United StatesConstitution?Is the Florida Supreme Court’s approval of alegislative scheme that allows an executive agency tounilaterally modify a private landowner’s propertyboundary without a judicial hearing or the paymentof just compensation a violation of the due processclauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments tothe United States Constitution?
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...