Murr v. Wisconsin
United States Supreme Court
137 S. Ct. 1933, 198 L. Ed. 2d 497, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The State of Wisconsin (defendant) set a minimum lot size below which development on the St. Croix River was prohibited. The rule’s grandfather clause did not apply to adjacent lots under common ownership. The Murrs (plaintiffs) controlled two adjacent tracts of land on the river. The Murrs owned one of the tracts, and the Murrs’ company owned the other. One of the lots (Lot E) was undeveloped and below the rule’s minimum lot size. Both tracts were narrow and contained a bluff and a steep bank to the river, making much of the tracts’ land hard to develop. The company conveyed its lot to the Murrs, effectively merging the lots for development purposes under the rule, which prohibited development on Lot E. The value of the combined lot was greater than the value of the combined individual lots. The Murrs sued Wisconsin, claiming that the rule constituted a regulatory taking because the Murrs were unable to develop Lot E individually. The circuit court granted Wisconsin summary judgment. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
Dissent (Roberts, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
