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
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...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
Property owners who allege a regulatory taking will now need to analyze their holdings against a new, fact-specific, three-factor standard announced by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine what constitutes the owners’ “whole...more
On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States finally decided Murr v. Wisconsin, __ U.S. __ (2017) (Case No. 15-214), a case that addressed land use regulations that “merged” adjacent parcels (the first of which...more
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...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
On June 23, the Supreme Court finally addressed directly the frequently posed question: When considering the claimed taking of a property interest by government regulation, what is the affected property to be considered? All...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
Real Property Update - US Supreme Court - Regulatory 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...more
On June 23, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated ruling in Murr v. Wisconsin, a takings case that may have important consequences for property owners owning multiple contiguous parcels. The Court held that...more
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., No. 16-399: Petitioner Anthony Perry was a federal employee at the U.S. Census Bureau and in 2011, received notice he would be terminated due to spotty attendance. Perry and the Bureau...more
The Supreme Court of the United States applied a multi-factor test to rule that a regulation prohibiting construction on an undersized lot contiguous to a second lot under common ownership was not a taking. In the broadest...more
On June 23, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, holding that, in determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, courts should...more
On June 23, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there was no compensable taking of Petitioners’ property in Murr v. Wisconsin. Petitioners who own two adjacent lots along a waterfront in Wisconsin were not deprived of all...more
The US Supreme Court today issued its latest pronouncement on regulatory takings, Murr et. al, v. Wisconsin, et al. Justice Kennedy wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. The issue was...more
In this eight-week alert series, we are providing a broad look at current and emerging issues facing the energy sector. Lawyers from across the firm are discussing issues ranging from cybersecurity, antitrust and intellectual...more
This Advisory briefly reports on some of the significant U.S. Supreme Court actions from January through June 2016 related to environmental and administrative law. ...more
This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a critical question that will determine whether some landowners will receive compensation from regulations that restrict the uses of their land. The case, Murr v. Wisconsin, may...more
It is an understatement to say that pursuing a claim against the government for a Fifth Amendment regulatory taking is difficult. The United States Supreme Court has described such claims as presenting “an especially steep...more