Murr v. Wisconsin
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 23, 2017 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- June 23, 2017
- Term
- October Term 2016
- Vote
- 5–3
- Majority author
- Justice Kennedy
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. The classic example of a property taking by the government is when the property has been occupied or otherwise seized. In the case now before the Court, petitioners contend that governmental entities took their real property-an undeveloped residential lot-not by some physical occupation but instead by enacting burdensome regulations that forbid its improvement or separate sale because it is classified as substandard in size. The relevant governmental entities are the respondents. Against the background justifications for the challenged restrictions, respondents contend there is no regulatory taking because petitioners own an adjacent lot. The regulations, in effecting a merger of the property, permit the continued residential use of the property including for a single improvement to extend over both lots. This retained right of the landowner, respondents urge, is of sufficient offsetting value that the regulation is not severe enough to be a regulatory taking. To resolve the issue whether the landowners can insist on confining the analysis just to the lot in question, without regard to their ownership of the adjacent lot, it is necessary to discuss the background principles that define regulatory takings. I A The St. Croix River originates in northwest Wisconsin and flows approximately 170 miles until it joins the…
Excerpt of a 64,895-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.