Last Friday the United States Supreme Court agreed to take a case from Wisconsin that has implications for takings jurisprudence. The case is Murr v. State of Wisconsin, and the question certified for the Court is “Whether in a regulatory takings case, the ‘parcel as a whole’ concept as described in Penn Central Transportation Company v City of New York, establishes a rule that two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels must be combined for takings analysis purposes.”
SCOTUS accepts takings case from Wisconsin
Recent Posts
- Local Officials Permissive Interpretation of Zoning Ordinance is Acceptable
- Subdivision is a local, often subjective, decision
- Statute of limitations does not bar enforcement of a court decree
- Iowa’s Right-to-Farm law constitutional, but limited in its application
- ISU Extension to Continue to Provide Services of the Institute of Public Affairs
Tags
2013 legislation
2015 legislation
Annexation
cell towers
cell tower shot clock
Condemnation
conditional use permits
Easements
Equal Protection
Fair Housing Act
Federal 6th Circuit
Federal 7th circuit
Federal 8th Circuit
Federal Telecommunications Act
First Amendment
First Amendment Freedom of Speech
Introduction to Iowa Planning and Zoning for Local Officials
Iowa Court of Appeals
Iowa courts
Iowa current news
Iowa legislation
Iowa Supreme Court
Michigan Court of Appeals
Minnesota Court of Appeals
Minnesota Supreme Court
Missouri Court of Appeals
Nebraska Supreme Court
nonconforming uses
North Dakota Supreme Court
Notice
Nuisance
Preemption
procedural due process
Procedural Issues
RLUIPA
Signs and billboards
Smart Planning bill
special assessments
standing
Takings
United States Supreme Court
US Supreme Court
Variances
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Zoning board of adjustment