Constitutional Law—Property (Regulatory Takings)
Murr v. Wisconsin, 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Study notes for Murr v. Wisconsin: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Adjacent, commonly owned lots subject to a merger provision are treated as a single parcel for regulatory takings analysis.
This case deals with the concept of determining the relevant parcel when assessing regulatory takings under the Fifth Amendment. The Murr siblings owned two adjacent lots that were deemed as a single parcel due to a local merger provision. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of looking at the property as a whole rather than in isolation, which brings into play the principles established in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City. This case serves as a significant example of the complexities involved in property rights and municipal regulations, highlighting how local laws can impact property owners' expectations and rights to development.
The Court's decision not only underscores the necessity for regulatory frameworks to serve public interests but also emphasizes that the analysis of what constitutes a taking involves considering owners' reasonable expectations. As a professor, I would urge students to critically assess how local regulations interact with property rights and what that means for the concept of ownership in the face of governmental authority.
MURR - Merger Under Regulatory Review.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City | Murr expands the context of the Penn Central test to joint ownership and merger provisions, focusing on how the relevant parcel is defined. |
| Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council | Unlike Lucas, which dealt with total takings and specific land use restrictions, Murr focuses on how regulations affect property value under merged lots. |
| Kelo v. City of New London | Kelo involves the use of eminent domain for public purpose, whereas Murr examines the interplay of regulatory restrictions and property rights. |
Treating adjacent lots as a single parcel supports cohesive urban planning and environmental preservation, promoting overall community welfare.
This rule may infringe on individual property rights by limiting owners' use and development options based on local regulations that may not reflect economic realities.
Murr v. Wisconsin is often examined in the context of regulatory takings and property rights, focusing on how courts determine the relevant parcel for takings analysis and the application of the Penn Central test.