Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, Hawaii Housing Authority (Petitioner), forced landowners such as the Respondent, Midkiff (Respondent), to sell parcels of their land to those who were leasing the land. This was done in an effort to spread land ownership more evenly amongst the islands’ inhabitants.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Ones property may not be taken for the benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose, even though compensation was paid.
Issue. Is the transferring of title from lessors to lessees in order to reduce the concentration of ownership of fees simple a taking by the state of Hawaii?
Held. No. The Hawaii Legislature enacted its Land Reform Act not to benefit a particular class of individuals, but to attack perceived evils of concentrated property ownership in Hawaii. This is a legitimate public purpose.
Discussion. The social evil is the concentration of landownership in only a small group of people. The result of this was a monopolized real estate market that improperly inflated rates. So, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) determined that the exercise of eminent domain was an appropriate action by the state to rectify this public h