HRS 0486H-0010_0004 ANNOTATIONS

Where plaintiff argued that §3(c) of Act 257, [L 1997, (§486H-10.4(c))] ("Act 257") effected a regulatory taking because it failed to substantially advance a legitimate state interest, district court erred in granting summary judgment because resolution of factual issues was necessary to determine whether Act 257 substantially advanced, or bore a reasonable relationship to, State's interest in lowering gasoline prices; summary judgment inappropriate on other two grounds urged by plaintiff. 224 F.3d 1030.

Rent cap in Act 257 [L 1997, (§486H-10.4(c)(2))] was unconstitutional; Act 257's imposition of a cap on the rent that an oil company may charge a lessee-dealer did not substantially advance State's legitimate interest in lowering gasoline prices. 198 F. Supp. 2d 1182.