Supreme Court Commentaries
Fifth Amendment, Per Se Takings, Just Compensation
Constitutional Law | Supreme Court of the United States
Murr v. Wisconsin seeks to determine whether commonly-owned, adjacent parcels of land are considered as 1 or 2 parcels for purposes of analyzing a regulatory takings claim. Nearly 40 years ago, the Court in Penn Central rejected a property owner's takings claim which segmenting the entire parcel into discrete property rights because a compensatory taking must result from governmental action which interferes with the "parcel as a whole." In Murr, property owners argue that a local zoning ordinance effected a taking of one of their two adjoining parcels because the ordinance prohibited the owners from developing their lot. I argue that the property owners deserve just compensation because of both material factual errors in the state court opinions and that Penn Central's rejection of segmenting parcels does not require the aggregation of adjacent parcels.
Gavin S. Frisch, What is the Relevant Parcel? Clarifying the "Parcel as a Whole" Standard in Murr v. Wisconsin, 12 Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar 253-267 (2017)