Murr v. Wisconsin

6 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. “What’s Mine Is Not Yours To Give Me”—Nor To Take Without Just Compensation: A New Jersey’s Reaction To Sovereign Immunity, Intellectual Property, & Takings

    International Lawyers NetworkJames FlynnJanuary 5, 2022

    Takings analysis starts with the 5th Amendment (sometimes through the 14th Amendment and sometimes through state counterparts to the 5th Amendment). SeeMurr v. Wisconsin,137 S. Ct. 1933, 1942 (2017)(citingChicago Burlington & Q.R.C. v. Chicago,166 U.S. 226 (1897). And, it goes like this–the relevant concept in the United States is that a person shall “no[t] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

  2. Notable Eminent Domain and Inverse Condemnation Cases from 2017 (and one from 2018)

    Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPKevin BrodehlJanuary 23, 2018

    Here are the cases that caught our attention from the universe of eminent domain and inverse condemnation during 2017 (and one case from January 2018). We start with the published cases (which are binding precedent) and then recap some interesting unpublished cases.Published Cases (some links lead to an unpublished opinion that was later published by separate court order)Murr v. Wisconsin (U.S. Supreme Court, June 23, 2017) 137 S.Ct. 1933 The United States Supreme Court’s ruling gives government agencies greater leeway to restrict development in environmentally sensitive areas. The same family owned two separate adjacent parcels for several decades.

  3. Murr v. Wisconsin: Defining the Property Affected by a Regulatory Taking

    McNees Wallace & Nurick LLCKandice Kerwin HullJuly 29, 2017

    The Supreme Court of the United States recently decided the case Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214 (June 23, 2017), which laid out a new test for determining whether separate parcels of land should be evaluated as a single parcel in a regulatory takings analysis. The case involved two adjacent lots of land located along the St. Croix River in Wisconsin.

  4. SCOTUS Establishes a New Three-Part Test To Determine the “Whole Parcel” in Regulatory Takings Cases

    Locke Lord LLPJennifer SchiefelbeinJuly 1, 2017

    An owner of multiple parcels of real property, for example, will need to consider: (1) how state and local law treat all the owner’s real property, including adjacent (or possibly non-contiguous) tracts; (2) the physical characteristics of the parcel; and (3) the prospective value of the regulated land as against any benefit attributable to the remaining land. The U.S. Supreme Court announced the new standard in Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, 2017 WL 2694699 (U.S. June 23, 2017). A discussion of the case, including an in-depth look at the new standard, follows.Factual backgroundMurr involves two adjacent lots—Lot E and Lot F—along the St. Croix river.

  5. Murr Decision Makes Takings Law Murkier

    Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLPMichael BergerJune 30, 2017

    Murr v. Wisconsin (June 23, 2017, Docket No. 15-214)Why It Matters: The Supreme Court missed an opportunity to bring some clarity to the law of regulatory takings and, instead, made the law more confusing and less protective of the rights of property owners.Legal Background: Several decades ago, when the Supreme Court tentatively began dealing with regulatory takings after an absence of about half a century, it issued an opinion titled Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). As befits a Court where no member was on the bench the last time the Court considered such a case, the Penn Central opinion was indeed cautious.

  6. Real Property & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending June 16 & 23, 2017

    Carlton Fields Jorden BurtJourdan HaynesJune 28, 2017

    Real Property UpdateUS Supreme CourtRegulatory Taking: owner of parcel A, that took title to adjacent parcel B after regulation restricting use of parcels had been passed, lost grandfather rights for both parcels by operation of merger and was not entitled to compensation for taking - Murr, et al. v Wisconsin, et al., Case No. 15–214 (U.S. June 23, 2017) (affirmed).Florida CourtsForeclosure/Standing: final judgment of foreclosure reversed for failure to prove standing at the inception of lawsuit -Verizzo v The Bank of NY Mellon, Case No. 2D15-2508 (Fla. 2d DCA June 21, 2017).