Haw. Hous. Auth. v. Rodrigues

Decision Date23 July 1959
Docket NumberNO. 4011.,4011.
Citation43 Haw. 414
PartiesHAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY, A PUBLIC BODY AND A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC v. VIOLET K. RODRIGUES, ET AL.
CourtHawaii Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

PETITION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION.

Earl S. Robinson ( Fong, Miho, Choy & Robinson) for respondents-appellees, for the petition.

Joseph V. Hodgson for Hawaii Housing Authority, appellant, contra.

RICE, C. J., STAINBACK AND MARUMOTO, JJ.

Per Curiam.

In the petition for rehearing and reconsideration the point was made that expenses incurred by the owners in their plan for a subdivision had enhanced the value of the property as a whole to that extent.

There was no written stipulation as to value but merely an oral statement by the court as follows:

“THE COURT: Do I understand that counsel have agreed that the fair market value of the property taken, Parcels, 4, 14 and 19, is $104,750, if it was appraised as residential lots?”

to which the following reply was given:

“MR. SHARPLESS: That is correct, on the date of taking, which was September 18, 1952.”

As this court has decided many times, the value at the date of the taking is the amount to which the owner is entitled.

This court assumes that all elements of value were included within the stipulated value as of September 18, 1952. It ruled that so-called estimated profits from a planned subdivision should not be considered.

Petition denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • City and County of Honolulu v. Bishop Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1965
    ...to the allowance of interest on the $12,000 and $15,000 amounts, on the ground that each was 'a compromise value.' In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Rodrigues, 43 Haw. 414, affirming 43 Haw. 195, it was held that when the parties agree on the amount of the value, the court assumes that all ele......
  • Territory by Sharpless v. Adelmeyer
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • July 19, 1961
    ...plus being in contradiction to the Rodrigues case (referring to Hawaii Housing Authority v. Rodrigues, 43 Haw. 195, rehearing denied 43 Haw. 414)' which motion was The testimony of the other two appraisers was limited only to the value of the Shimamura property. Appraiser Kaneshiro expresse......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT