Combining neighboring properties
Murr v. Wisconsin
In brief
The Supreme Court sided with Wisconsin’s appeals court: for the Murr family’s claim, the two lots count as one property.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-3 · June 23, 2017 · Opinion by Justice Kennedy
- What it’s about
- The Murr family challenged a Wisconsin land-use rule affecting two adjacent lots they owned, arguing the lots should be assessed separately to decide whether the rule took property without compensation.
- Who it affects
- The Murrs’ two adjoining lots must be treated as one property when assessing the effect of the challenged land-use rule.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court agreed with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals that the lots should be treated as one property for that analysis and affirmed its ruling.
The lots were along Wisconsin’s Lower St. Croix River. A local rule barred the Murr family from selling or developing them separately because neither had enough buildable land.
The dispute centered on whether the relevant property was two separate lots or one combined property.
Question presented
In a regulatory taking case, does the "parcel as a whole" concept as described in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 130-31 (1978), establish a rule that two legally distinct, but commonly owned contiguous parcels, must be combined for takings analysis purposes?
What the Court decided
Holding
The State Court of Appeals was correct to analyze petitioners’ property as a single unit in assessing the effect of the challenged governmental action. 2015 WI App 13, 359 Wis. 2d 675, 859 N. W. 2d 628, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
From the opinions
“In my view, it would be desirable for us to take a fresh look at our regulatory takings jurisprudence, to see whether it can be grounded in the original public meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
What's next
The Wisconsin appeals court’s ruling remains in place; the Supreme Court did not send the case back for further proceedings.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Questions Presented
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.