Murr v. Wisconsin

Supreme Court of the United States · 2017 · Property

PropertyRegulatory TakingsTakings Clauseregulatory takingTakings Clauseparcel as a wholedenominator problemPenn Central

Facts

Petitioners owned two adjacent lots, Lots E and F, along the Lower St. Croix River in Wisconsin. Each lot was substandard under state and county regulations requiring at least one acre of suitable land for separate development, and a merger provision barred adjacent substandard lots under common ownership from being sold or developed separately. After petitioners acquired the two lots in 1994 and 1995, the lots were treated as merged under state and local law. Petitioners wanted to sell Lot E separately to finance moving or improving the cabin on Lot F, but their variance requests were denied, so they claimed the regulations took Lot E by preventing its separate sale or development.

Issue

When determining whether a regulation effects a taking, how should a court define the relevant unit of property against which to measure the economic impact of the regulation? Specifically, should petitioners' adjacent lots be treated as separate parcels or as a single parcel for the takings analysis?

Rule

No single factor determines the relevant parcel in a regulatory takings case. Courts must use a multifactor inquiry that asks whether reasonable expectations about property ownership would lead a landowner to anticipate treatment of the holdings as one parcel or as separate tracts, considering at least: (1) the treatment of the land under state and local law; (2) the physical characteristics of the land; and (3) the prospective value of the regulated land, including the effect of the burdened land on the value of other holdings.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez owns two adjacent undersized lots on the shore of Lake Superior near Duluth, Minnesota. A county ordinance adopted years earlier provides that contiguous substandard lots under common ownership may not be sold or developed separately, though substandard lots held in separate ownership are grandfathered. Nina claims the ordinance took one lot because that lot alone cannot be separately sold.

How should a court determine the relevant parcel for Nina's takings claim?

Explanation. The majority rejected both bright-line approaches: lot lines are not automatically dispositive, and state law is not exclusively controlling. Courts must ask whether objective reasonable expectations about property ownership would lead a landowner to anticipate treatment as one parcel or as separate tracts, considering at least state and local law, physical characteristics, and prospective value including the burdened land's effect on other holdings.