Eminent Domain: First Principles, Kelo, and In Service of Infrastructure Buildout
Real Estate Developer Rights When Cities Demand Too Much
Newsflash: Rockweed Not a Fish
Yours, Mine and Ours (not yet!): An Update on the Patentability of Human Genes -
Last week we wrote about a United States Supreme Court case Murr v. Wisconsin and its impact locally. Since that post, the Petitioner, Donna Murr contacted the author to provide us with an update to her family’s situation....more
The stakes could not be higher; would the property yield one or two waterfront building lots? On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States decided a case that involved the merger of two parcels of property...more
Early last summer the U.S. Supreme Court released its long-awaited, and deeply flawed decision in Murr v. Wisconsin, __ U.S. __ (2017). We wrote about this unfortunate new takings case here and in “Missed Opportunity In...more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court in Murr v. Wisconsin issued a key regulatory takings decision which creates a new multifactor balancing test to determine whether two adjacent properties with single ownership could...more
In Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, 2017 WL 2694699 (U.S.S.C. June 23, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, addressed "one of the critical questions" in the law of regulatory takings:...more
In Murr v. Wisconsin, the US Supreme Court declined to find that a landowner's riverfront property was the subject of a regulatory taking. In a 5-3 decision, the majority adopted a new test for defining the bounds of the...more
In an interesting twist, eight members of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on June 23, 2017, in the case of Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, that state regulations making two adjoining lots held in common ownership into a single...more