Murr vs. Wisconsin

Murr vs. Wisconsin, a lawsuit challenging St. Croix County zoning ordinances, has made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The property owners allege that the zoning ordinances effect a regulatory taking of their property.

Stafford Rosenbaum is honored to represent the Wisconsin Counties Association, the Wisconsin Towns Association, and the League of Wisconsin Municipalities as amici curiae (friends of the court) in this case. Taken together, these organizations represent every level of local government in Wisconsin.

The municipal organizations' brief does not argue the case's merits. Instead, it urges the Court not to render a constitutional ruling because the case likely can be resolved under settled principles of state procedural law.

Stafford Rosenbaum Attorney Featured as Subject Matter Expert

Stafford Rosenbaum attorney Jeff Mandell was also recently featured on a panel of local experts at the "Understanding Regulatory Takings: Murr vs. Wisconsin and Beyond" event put on by The Institute for Legal Studies at UW Law School. In this panel discussion, lawyers who have worked on the case will discuss the case, the oral argument, and the future of regulatory takings law. Other experts included:

Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General of Wisconsin
Jeff Mandell, Attorney, Stafford Rosenbaum
John Kassner, Attorney, Von Briesen & Roper
Moderated by: Professor Miriam Seifter, UW Law School

Jeff Mandell also presented about the case shortly before it was decided, at the League’s Municipal Attorneys Institute on June 15. He will also be presenting about the case and its implications at the Wisconsin Bar’s 29th Annual Environmental Law Update on September 13. 

A Decision Has Been Made!

Check out the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on this case and the main takeaways you should glean from the case in Jeff Mandell's most recent blog post here:

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Wisconsin Takings Case, Adopts Complex Test, and Approves Merger Clauses

Official Decision from the Supreme Court of the United States

Additional Case Commentary from the Massachusetts Municipal Lawyers Association

Check out our video series on this case presented by Jeff Mandell, Co-Chair of the Appellate Practice Group.

Case Overview:

State of the Current Law for Takings Cases:

Summary of Oral Arguments Presented March 20, 2017:

Delve more deeply into the oral argument with the transcript or the audio recording.

Click here for the full written transcript.

What's Next?

Want to know more? Stafford Rosenbaum's blog has explained the Murr case, summarized the parties' arguments, and detailed the the WCA, the WTA, and the League's amicus brief.  We've also analyzed the oral argument held March 20 and the questions the Court asked.

Stay tuned to Stafford's blog for continuing coverage of the Murr case, as well as other developments in Wisconsin law. And let us know if you'd like to discuss how Stafford Rosenbaum can address your municipal law, appellate law, or other needs

Want more resources on this case? Access argument audio and transcripts, additional analysis and commentary below.

The George Washington Law Review: Murr vs. Wisconsin: The "Whole Parcel" Rule Prevails, At Least in This Regulatory Takings Case

Takings Litigation: Big Victory for State and Local Governments in Murr

Only Wisconsin Case Before U.S. Supreme Court this Term Should Not Be Decided

Why Murr v. Wisconsin is a Fascinating Takings Case that the U.S. Supreme Court Should Not Decide

Audio and Transcript of the Oral Arguments

Full written transcript of Oral Arguments

Miriam Seifter, Argument analysis: Justices search for a common denominator in takings case, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 21, 2017)

Sam Hananel, U.S. Supreme Court seems divided in Wisconsin property rights dispute, Associated Press (Mar. 20, 2017)

Ilya Somin, Thoughts on the oral argument in Murr v. Wisconsin, Washington Post (Mar. 20, 2017)

John Henry Stam, Property Definition at Stake as High Court Hears Land Use Case, Bloomberg/BNA (Mar. 23, 2017)

The World and Everything in It (podcast) features discussions of last week’s arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin