murr
et
al
wisconsin
et
argued
march
decided
june
croix
river
forms
part
boundary
wisconsin
minnesota
protected
federal
state
local
law
petitioners
two
adjacent
lots
lot
lot
along
lower
portion
river
town
troy
wisconsin
area
petitioners
property
located
state
local
regulations
prevent
use
sale
adjacent
lots
common
ownership
separate
building
sites
unless
least
one
acre
land
suitable
development
grandfather
clause
relaxes
restriction
substandard
lots
separate
ownership
adjacent
lands
january
regulation
effective
date
petitioners
parents
purchased
lots
separately
maintained
separate
ownership
transferring
lot
petitioners
lot
petitioners
lots
one
acre
size
topography
less
one
acre
suitable
development
unification
lots
common
ownership
therefore
implicated
rules
barring
separate
sale
development
petitioners
became
interested
selling
lot
part
improvement
plan
lots
sought
variances
croix
county
board
adjustment
board
denied
request
state
courts
affirmed
relevant
part
particular
state
appeals
found
local
ordinance
effectively
merged
lots
petitioners
sell
build
single
combined
lot
petitioners
filed
suit
alleging
regulations
worked
regulatory
taking
deprived
practically
use
lot
county
circuit
granted
summary
judgment
state
explaining
petitioners
options
enjoy
use
property
including
eliminating
cabin
building
new
residence
either
lot
across
also
found
petitioners
deprived
economic
value
property
decrease
market
value
unified
lots
less
percent
state
appeals
affirmed
holding
takings
analysis
properly
focused
lots
together
using
framework
merger
regulations
effect
taking
held
state
appeals
correct
analyze
petitioners
property
single
unit
assessing
effect
challenged
governmental
action
pp
takings
clause
jurisprudence
informs
analysis
issue
pp
regulatory
takings
jurisprudence
recognizes
regulation
goes
far
recognized
taking
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
area
law
characterized
ad
hoc
factual
inquiries
designed
allow
careful
examination
weighing
relevant
circumstances
preservation
council
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
citation
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
however
identified
two
guidelines
relevant
determining
government
regulation
constitutes
taking
first
certain
qualifications
regulation
economically
beneficial
productive
use
land
require
compensation
takings
clause
palazzolo
rhode
island
quoting
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
second
taking
may
found
based
complex
factors
including
economic
impact
regulation
claimant
extent
regulation
interfered
distinct
expectations
character
governmental
action
palazzolo
supra
citing
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
yet
even
complete
deprivation
use
lucas
require
compensation
challenged
limitations
inhere
restrictions
background
principles
state
law
property
nuisance
already
placed
upon
land
ownership
lucas
central
dynamic
regulatory
takings
jurisprudence
thus
flexibility
means
reconcile
two
competing
objectives
central
regulatory
takings
doctrine
individual
right
retain
interests
exercise
freedoms
core
private
property
ownership
cf
government
power
adjus
rights
public
good
andrus
allard
pp
case
presents
critical
question
determining
whether
regulatory
taking
occurred
proper
unit
property
assess
effect
challenged
governmental
action
set
forth
specific
guidance
identify
relevant
parcel
however
declined
artificially
limit
parcel
portion
property
targeted
challenged
regulation
cautioned
viewing
property
rights
takings
clause
coextensive
state
law
pp
courts
must
consider
number
factors
determining
proper
denominator
takings
inquiry
pp
inquiry
objective
determine
whether
reasonable
expectations
property
ownership
lead
landowner
anticipate
holdings
treated
one
parcel
separate
tracts
first
courts
give
substantial
weight
property
treatment
particular
bounded
divided
state
local
law
second
courts
must
look
property
physical
characteristics
including
physical
relationship
distinguishable
tracts
topography
surrounding
human
ecological
environment
third
courts
assess
property
value
challenged
regulation
special
attention
effect
burdened
land
value
holdings
pp
formalistic
rules
state
wisconsin
petitioners
advocate
capture
central
legal
factual
principles
informing
reasonable
expectations
property
interests
wisconsin
tie
definition
parcel
state
law
also
necessary
weigh
whether
state
enactments
issue
accord
indicia
reasonable
expectations
property
petitioners
urge
adopt
presumption
lot
lines
control
lot
lines
creatures
state
law
overridden
state
reasonable
exercise
power
regulate
land
merger
provision
legitimate
exercise
state
power
reflected
consistency
long
history
merger
regulations
many
merger
provisions
exist
nationwide
today
pp
appropriate
multifactor
standard
follows
petitioners
property
evaluated
single
parcel
consisting
lots
together
first
property
treatment
state
local
law
valid
merger
lots
state
law
informs
reasonable
expectation
lots
treated
single
property
second
turning
property
physical
characteristics
lots
contiguous
terrain
shape
make
reasonable
expect
range
potential
uses
might
limited
petitioners
anticipated
regulation
property
due
location
along
river
regulated
federal
state
local
law
long
acquired
land
third
lot
brings
prospective
value
lot
restriction
using
individual
lots
mitigated
benefits
using
property
integrated
whole
allowing
increased
privacy
recreational
space
plus
optimal
location
improvements
relationship
evident
lots
combined
valuation
appeals
thus
correct
treat
contiguous
properties
one
parcel
considering
petitioners
property
whole
state
correct
conclude
petitioners
establish
compensable
taking
suffered
taking
lucas
deprived
economically
beneficial
use
property
see
suffered
taking
general
test
penn
central
supra
pp
wi
app
affirmed
kennedy
delivered
opinion
ginsburg
breyer
sotomayor
kagan
joined
roberts
filed
dissenting
opinion
thomas
alito
joined
thomas
filed
dissenting
opinion
gorsuch
took
part
consideration
decision
case
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
joseph
murr
et
petitioners
wisconsin
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
wisconsin
district
iii
june
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
classic
example
property
taking
government
property
occupied
otherwise
seized
case
petitioners
contend
governmental
entities
took
real
property
undeveloped
residential
lot
physical
occupation
instead
enacting
burdensome
regulations
forbid
improvement
separate
sale
classified
substandard
size
relevant
governmental
entities
respondents
background
justifications
challenged
restrictions
respondents
contend
regulatory
taking
petitioners
adjacent
lot
regulations
effecting
merger
property
permit
continued
residential
use
property
including
single
improvement
extend
lots
retained
right
landowner
respondents
urge
sufficient
offsetting
value
regulation
severe
enough
regulatory
taking
resolve
issue
whether
landowners
insist
confining
analysis
lot
question
without
regard
ownership
adjacent
lot
necessary
discuss
background
principles
define
regulatory
takings
croix
river
originates
northwest
wisconsin
flows
approximately
miles
joins
mississippi
river
forming
boundary
minnesota
wisconsin
much
length
lower
portion
river
slows
widens
create
natural
water
area
known
lake
croix
tourists
residents
region
long
extolled
picturesque
grandeur
river
surrounding
area
ellett
summer
rambles
west
wild
scenic
rivers
act
river
designated
federal
protection
stat
designating
upper
croix
river
lower
saint
croix
river
act
stat
adding
lower
croix
river
law
required
wisconsin
minnesota
develop
management
development
program
river
area
fed
reg
compliance
wisconsin
authorized
state
department
natural
resources
promulgate
rules
limiting
development
order
guarantee
protection
wild
scenic
recreational
qualities
river
present
future
generations
stat
petitioners
two
sisters
two
brothers
murr
family
petitioners
parents
arranged
receive
ownership
two
lots
family
used
recreation
along
lower
croix
river
town
troy
wisconsin
lots
adjacent
parents
purchased
separately
put
title
one
name
family
business
later
arranged
transfer
two
lots
different
dates
petitioners
lots
referred
litigation
lots
described
detail
area
petitioners
property
located
wisconsin
rules
prevent
use
lots
separate
building
sites
unless
least
one
acre
land
suitable
development
admin
code
nr
clause
relaxes
restriction
substandard
lots
separate
ownership
abutting
lands
january
effective
date
regulation
nr
clause
permits
use
qualifying
lots
separate
building
sites
rules
also
include
merger
provision
however
provides
adjacent
lots
common
ownership
may
sold
developed
separate
lots
meet
size
requirement
nr
wisconsin
rules
require
localities
adopt
parallel
provisions
see
nr
croix
county
zoning
ordinance
contains
identical
restrictions
see
croix
county
ordinance
wisconsin
rules
also
authorize
local
zoning
authority
grant
variances
regulations
enforcement
create
unnecessary
hardship
nr
croix
county
ordinance
petitioners
parents
purchased
lot
built
small
recreational
cabin
transferred
title
lot
family
plumbing
company
purchased
neighboring
lot
held
names
lots
topography
steep
bluff
cuts
middle
level
land
suitable
development
bluff
next
water
line
dividing
lot
lot
runs
riverfront
far
end
property
crossing
blufftop
along
way
lot
approximately
feet
river
frontage
lot
approximately
feet
though
lot
approximately
acres
size
waterline
steep
bank
less
one
acre
land
suitable
development
even
combined
lots
buildable
land
area
acres
due
steep
terrain
lots
remained
separate
ownership
lot
owned
plumbing
company
lot
owned
petitioners
parents
transfers
petitioners
lot
conveyed
lot
conveyed
murr
croix
county
bd
adjustment
wi
app
wi
app
unpublished
opinion
app
pet
cert
certain
ambiguities
record
concerning
whether
lots
merged
earlier
parties
courts
appear
assumed
merger
occurred
upon
transfer
petitioners
decade
later
petitioners
became
interested
moving
cabin
lot
different
portion
lot
selling
lot
fund
project
unification
lots
common
ownership
however
implicated
state
local
rules
barring
separate
sale
development
petitioners
sought
variances
croix
county
board
adjustment
enable
building
improvement
plan
including
variance
allow
separate
sale
use
lots
board
denied
requests
state
courts
affirmed
relevant
part
particular
wisconsin
appeals
agreed
board
interpretation
local
ordinance
effectively
merged
lots
petitioners
sell
build
single
larger
lot
murr
supra
petitioners
filed
present
action
state
alleging
state
county
regulations
worked
regulatory
taking
depriving
practically
use
lot
lot
sold
developed
separate
lot
app
parties
submitted
appraisal
numbers
trial
respondents
appraisal
included
values
lots
together
regulated
lots
two
distinct
properties
lot
single
lot
improvements
record
petitioners
appraisal
included
unrebutted
estimated
value
lot
undevelopable
lot
based
counterfactual
assumption
sold
separate
property
circuit
croix
county
granted
summary
judgment
state
explaining
petitioners
retained
several
available
options
use
enjoyment
property
case
app
pet
cert
example
preserve
existing
cabin
relocate
cabin
eliminate
cabin
build
new
residence
lot
lot
across
lots
also
found
petitioners
deprived
economic
value
property
considering
valuation
property
single
lot
versus
two
separate
lots
found
market
value
property
significantly
affected
regulations
decrease
value
less
percent
ibid
wisconsin
appeals
affirmed
explained
regulatory
takings
inquiry
required
determine
precisely
property
issue
relying
wisconsin
precedent
zealy
waukesha
appeals
rejected
petitioners
request
analyze
effect
regulations
lot
instead
held
takings
analysis
properly
focused
regulations
effect
murrs
property
whole
lots
together
app
pet
cert
using
framework
appeals
concluded
merger
regulations
effect
taking
particular
explained
petitioners
reasonably
expected
use
lots
separately
knowledge
existing
zoning
acquired
property
ibid
quoting
murr
supra
thus
even
petitioners
intend
develop
sell
lot
separately
expectation
separate
treatment
became
unreasonable
chose
acquire
lot
acquired
lot
app
pet
cert
also
discounted
severity
economic
impact
petitioners
property
recognizing
circuit
conclusion
regulations
diminished
property
combined
value
less
percent
wisconsin
denied
discretionary
review
granted
certiorari
ii
takings
clause
fifth
amendment
provides
private
property
shall
taken
public
use
without
compensation
clause
made
applicable
fourteenth
amendment
chicago
chicago
recognized
plain
language
takings
clause
requires
payment
compensation
whenever
government
acquires
private
property
public
purpose
see
preservation
council
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
address
specific
terms
imposition
regulatory
burdens
private
property
indeed
rior
justice
holmes
exposition
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
generally
thought
takings
clause
reached
direct
appropriation
property
functional
equivalent
practical
ouster
owner
possession
like
permanent
flooding
property
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
citation
brackets
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
accord
horne
department
agriculture
slip
see
also
loretto
teleprompter
manhattan
catv
mahon
however
initiated
regulatory
takings
jurisprudence
declaring
property
may
regulated
certain
extent
regulation
goes
far
recognized
taking
regulation
burdensome
become
taking
yet
mahon
formulate
detailed
guidance
determining
limit
reached
near
century
since
mahon
part
refrained
elaborating
principle
definitive
rules
area
law
characterized
ad
hoc
factual
inquiries
designed
allow
careful
examination
weighing
relevant
circumstances
supra
citation
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
however
stated
two
guidelines
relevant
determining
government
regulation
onerous
constitutes
taking
first
certain
qualifications
regulation
economically
beneficial
productive
use
land
require
compensation
takings
clause
palazzolo
rhode
island
quoting
lucas
supra
second
regulation
impedes
use
property
without
depriving
owner
economically
beneficial
use
taking
still
may
found
based
complex
factors
including
economic
impact
regulation
claimant
extent
regulation
interfered
distinct
expectations
character
governmental
action
palazzolo
supra
citing
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
declaring
denial
economically
beneficial
use
land
constitutes
regulatory
taking
lucas
stated
called
categorical
rule
see
even
lucas
however
included
caveat
recognizing
relevance
state
law
customs
complete
deprivation
use
require
compensation
challenged
limitations
inhere
restrictions
background
principles
state
law
property
nuisance
already
placed
upon
land
ownership
see
also
listing
factors
courts
consider
making
determination
central
dynamic
regulatory
takings
jurisprudence
flexibility
remains
means
reconcile
two
competing
objectives
central
regulatory
takings
doctrine
one
individual
right
retain
interests
exercise
freedoms
core
private
property
ownership
cf
notion
title
somehow
held
subject
limitation
state
may
subsequently
eliminate
economically
valuable
use
inconsistent
historical
compact
recorded
takings
clause
become
part
constitutional
culture
property
rights
necessary
preserve
freedom
property
ownership
empowers
persons
shape
plan
destiny
world
governments
always
eager
persisting
interest
government
power
adjus
rights
public
good
andrus
allard
justice
holmes
declared
government
hardly
go
extent
values
incident
property
diminished
without
paying
every
change
general
law
mahon
supra
adjudicating
regulatory
takings
cases
proper
balancing
principles
requires
careful
inquiry
informed
specifics
case
instances
analysis
must
driven
purpose
takings
clause
prevent
government
people
alone
bear
public
burdens
fairness
justice
borne
public
whole
palazzolo
supra
quoting
armstrong
case
presents
question
linked
ultimate
determination
whether
regulatory
taking
occurred
proper
unit
property
assess
effect
challenged
governmental
action
put
another
way
ecause
test
regulatory
taking
requires
us
compare
value
taken
property
value
remains
property
one
critical
questions
determining
define
unit
property
value
furnish
denominator
fraction
keystone
bituminous
coal
assn
debenedictis
quoting
michelman
property
utility
fairness
harv
rev
commentators
noted
answer
question
may
outcome
determinative
see
eagle
penn
central
regulatory
takings
test
rev
see
also
wright
new
time
denominators
env
explained
question
important
regulatory
takings
inquiry
extent
portion
property
taken
portion
always
taken
entirety
relevant
question
however
whether
property
taken
portion
parcel
question
concrete
pipe
products
construction
laborers
pension
trust
southern
defining
property
outset
however
necessarily
preordain
outcome
every
case
though
cases
effect
challenged
regulation
must
assessed
understood
effect
entire
property
held
owner
rather
part
property
considered
diminished
value
demonstrates
contrast
regulatory
takings
goal
usually
determine
challenged
regulation
affects
property
value
owner
physical
takings
impact
physical
appropriation
occupation
property
evident
set
forth
specific
guidance
identify
relevant
parcel
regulatory
taking
inquiry
two
concepts
indicated
unduly
narrow
first
declined
limit
parcel
artificial
manner
portion
property
targeted
challenged
regulation
penn
central
example
rejected
challenge
denial
permit
build
office
tower
grand
central
terminal
refused
measure
effect
denial
air
rights
terminal
cautioning
aking
jurisprudence
divide
single
parcel
discrete
segments
attempt
determine
whether
rights
particular
segment
entirely
abrogated
similar
way
refused
effectively
sever
months
petitioners
property
restricted
temporary
moratoria
development
ask
whether
segment
ha
taken
entirety
defining
property
interest
taken
terms
regulation
challenged
circular
ibid
approach
overstate
effect
regulation
property
turning
every
delay
total
ban
ibid
second
concept
expressed
caution
view
property
rights
takings
clause
coextensive
state
law
although
property
interests
foundations
state
law
palazzolo
reversed
decision
rejected
takings
challenge
regulations
predated
landowner
acquisition
title
explained
unfettered
authority
shape
define
property
rights
reasonable
expectations
leaving
landowners
without
recourse
unreasonable
regulations
measure
defining
parcel
reference
state
law
defeat
challenge
even
state
enactment
alters
permitted
uses
property
ways
inconsistent
reasonable
expectations
example
state
might
enact
law
consolidates
nonadjacent
property
owned
single
person
entity
different
parts
state
imposes
development
limits
aggregate
set
defined
parcel
according
state
law
requiring
consolidation
improperly
fortify
state
law
takings
claim
look
retained
value
property
whole
rather
considering
whether
individual
holdings
lost
value
iii
foregoing
discussion
makes
clear
single
consideration
supply
exclusive
test
determining
denominator
instead
courts
must
consider
number
factors
include
treatment
land
state
local
law
physical
characteristics
land
prospective
value
regulated
land
endeavor
determine
whether
reasonable
expectations
property
ownership
lead
landowner
anticipate
holdings
treated
one
parcel
instead
separate
tracts
inquiry
objective
reasonable
expectations
issue
derive
background
customs
whole
legal
tradition
cf
lucas
kennedy
concurring
expectations
protected
constitution
based
objective
rules
customs
understood
reasonable
parties
involved
first
courts
give
substantial
weight
treatment
land
particular
bounded
divided
state
local
law
reasonable
expectations
acquirer
land
must
acknowledge
legitimate
restrictions
affecting
subsequent
use
dispensation
property
see
ballard
hunter
concerns
may
concern
real
estate
men
usually
keep
informed
probability
law
may
frame
proceedings
valid
takings
claim
evaporate
purchaser
took
title
law
enacted
see
palazzolo
enactments
unreasonable
become
less
passage
time
title
reasonable
restriction
predates
landowner
acquisition
however
one
objective
factors
landowners
reasonably
consider
forming
fair
expectations
property
see
ibid
prospective
enactment
new
zoning
ordinance
limit
value
land
without
effecting
taking
understood
reasonable
concerned
similar
manner
use
restriction
triggered
change
ownership
also
guide
assessment
reasonable
private
expectations
second
courts
must
look
physical
characteristics
landowner
property
include
physical
relationship
distinguishable
tracts
parcel
topography
surrounding
human
ecological
environment
particular
may
relevant
property
located
area
subject
likely
become
subject
environmental
regulation
cf
lucas
supra
kennedy
concurring
coastal
property
may
present
unique
concerns
fragile
land
system
state
go
regulating
development
use
common
law
nuisance
might
otherwise
permit
third
courts
assess
value
property
challenged
regulation
special
attention
effect
burdened
land
value
holdings
though
use
restriction
may
decrease
market
value
property
effect
may
tempered
regulated
land
adds
value
remaining
property
increasing
privacy
expanding
recreational
space
preserving
surrounding
natural
beauty
law
limits
use
landowner
small
lot
one
part
city
reason
landowner
nonadjacent
holdings
elsewhere
may
decrease
market
value
small
lot
unmitigated
fashion
absence
special
relationship
holdings
may
counsel
consideration
holdings
single
parcel
making
restrictive
law
susceptible
takings
challenge
hand
landowner
property
adjacent
small
lot
market
value
properties
may
well
increase
combination
enables
expansion
structure
development
restraints
one
part
parcel
protect
unobstructed
skyline
views
another
part
turn
may
counsel
favor
treatment
single
parcel
may
reveal
weakness
regulatory
takings
challenge
law
state
federal
courts
considerable
experience
adjudicating
regulatory
takings
claims
depart
examples
various
ways
anticipates
applying
test
continue
exercise
care
complex
area
state
wisconsin
petitioners
ask
adopt
formalistic
rule
guide
parcel
inquiry
neither
proposal
suffices
capture
central
legal
factual
principles
inform
reasonable
expectations
property
interests
wisconsin
tie
definition
parcel
state
law
considering
two
lots
single
whole
due
merger
challenged
regulations
approach
already
noted
simply
assumes
answer
question
may
state
define
relevant
parcel
way
permits
escape
responsibility
justify
regulation
light
legitimate
property
expectations
course
unquestionable
law
must
recognize
legitimate
expectations
order
give
proper
weight
rights
owners
right
state
pass
reasonable
laws
regulations
see
palazzolo
supra
wisconsin
bases
position
lucas
suggests
answer
denominator
question
may
lie
owner
reasonable
expectations
shaped
state
law
property
whether
degree
state
law
accorded
legal
recognition
protection
particular
interest
land
respect
takings
claimant
alleges
diminution
elimination
value
initial
matter
lucas
referenced
parcel
problem
dicta
unnecessary
announcement
application
rule
established
see
ibid
avoid
th
difficulty
determining
relevant
parcel
present
case
event
test
adopts
today
consistent
respect
state
law
described
lucas
test
considers
state
law
addition
weighs
whether
state
enactments
issue
accord
indicia
reasonable
expectations
property
petitioners
propose
different
test
also
flawed
urge
adopt
presumption
lot
lines
define
relevant
parcel
every
instance
making
lot
necessary
denominator
petitioners
argument
however
ignores
fact
lot
lines
creatures
state
law
overridden
state
reasonable
exercise
power
effect
petitioners
ask
credit
aspect
state
law
favors
preferred
result
lot
lines
ignore
merger
provision
approach
contravenes
case
law
recognizes
reasonable
regulations
work
taking
see
palazzolo
mahon
among
cases
agins
city
tiburon
demonstrates
validity
proposition
upheld
zoning
regulations
legitimate
exercise
government
police
power
course
later
opinion
lingle
chevron
recognized
test
articulated
agins
regulation
effects
taking
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
improper
invited
courts
engage
heightened
review
effectiveness
government
regulation
quoting
agins
supra
lingle
made
clear
however
holding
agins
survived
even
test
imprecis
see
merger
provision
likewise
legitimate
exercise
government
power
reflected
consistency
long
history
state
local
merger
regulations
originated
nearly
century
ago
see
brief
national
association
counties
et
al
amici
curiae
merger
provisions
often
form
part
regulatory
scheme
establishes
minimum
lot
size
order
preserve
open
space
still
allowing
orderly
development
see
mcquillin
law
municipal
corporations
ed
see
also
agins
supra
challenged
zoning
ordinances
benefit
ed
appellants
well
public
serving
city
interest
assuring
careful
orderly
development
residential
property
provision
areas
localities
first
set
minimum
lot
size
often
existing
lots
meet
new
requirements
local
governments
strive
reduce
substandard
lots
gradual
manner
regulations
represent
classic
way
implementing
merger
provision
combines
contiguous
substandard
lots
common
ownership
alongside
grandfather
clause
preserves
adjacent
substandard
lots
separate
ownership
also
harshness
merger
provision
may
ameliorated
availability
variance
local
zoning
authority
landowners
special
circumstances
see
ziegler
rathkopf
law
zoning
planning
ed
petitioners
insistence
lot
lines
define
relevant
parcel
ignores
reliance
merger
provision
common
means
balancing
legitimate
goals
regulation
reasonable
expectations
landowners
petitioners
rule
frustrate
municipalities
ability
implement
minimum
lot
size
regulations
casting
doubt
many
merger
provisions
exist
nationwide
today
see
brief
national
association
counties
et
al
amici
curiae
listing
examples
merger
provisions
petitioners
reliance
lot
lines
also
problematic
another
reason
lot
lines
varying
degrees
formality
across
difficult
make
standard
measure
reasonable
expectations
property
owners
indeed
jurisdictions
lot
lines
may
subject
informal
adjustment
property
owners
minimal
government
oversight
see
brief
california
et
al
amici
curiae
kushner
subdivision
law
growth
management
ed
lot
line
adjustments
create
new
parcels
often
exempt
subdivision
review
see
cal
govt
code
ann
west
permitting
adjustment
lot
lines
subject
limited
conditions
government
approval
ease
modifying
lot
lines
also
creates
risk
gamesmanship
landowners
might
seek
alter
lines
anticipation
regulation
seems
likely
affect
part
property
iv
appropriate
multifactor
standard
follows
purposes
determining
whether
regulatory
taking
occurred
petitioners
property
evaluated
single
parcel
consisting
lots
together
first
treatment
property
state
local
law
indicates
petitioners
property
treated
one
considering
effects
restrictions
wisconsin
courts
held
state
local
regulations
merged
lots
app
pet
cert
transfer
lot
brought
lots
common
ownership
resulted
merger
two
lots
local
ordinance
decision
adopt
merger
provision
issue
specific
legitimate
purpose
consistent
widespread
understanding
lot
lines
dominant
controlling
every
case
see
supra
petitioners
land
subject
regulatory
burden
moreover
voluntary
conduct
bringing
lots
common
ownership
regulations
enacted
result
valid
merger
lots
state
law
informs
reasonable
expectation
treated
single
property
second
physical
characteristics
property
support
treatment
unified
parcel
lots
contiguous
along
longest
edge
rough
terrain
narrow
shape
make
reasonable
expect
range
potential
uses
might
limited
cf
app
pet
cert
petitioners
asserted
lot
put
alternative
uses
like
agriculture
commerce
due
size
location
steep
terrain
land
location
along
river
also
significant
petitioners
anticipated
public
regulation
might
affect
enjoyment
property
lower
croix
regulated
area
federal
state
local
law
long
petitioners
possessed
land
third
prospective
value
lot
brings
lot
supports
considering
two
one
parcel
purposes
determining
regulatory
taking
petitioners
prohibited
selling
lots
separately
building
separate
residential
structures
yet
restriction
mitigated
benefits
using
property
integrated
whole
allowing
increased
privacy
recreational
space
plus
optimal
location
improvements
see
case
app
pet
cert
elevated
level
privacy
close
neighbors
able
swim
play
volleyball
property
special
relationship
lots
shown
combined
valuation
lot
separately
saleable
still
subject
development
restriction
petitioners
appraiser
value
property
express
opinion
validity
figure
also
note
number
particularly
helpful
understanding
petitioners
retained
value
properties
lot
regulations
sold
without
lot
point
useful
purposes
combined
lots
valued
far
greater
summed
value
separate
regulated
lots
lot
cabin
according
respondents
appraiser
lot
undevelopable
plot
according
petitioners
appraiser
value
added
lots
combination
shows
complementarity
supports
treatment
one
parcel
state
appeals
correct
analyzing
petitioners
property
single
unit
petitioners
allege
state
applied
categorical
rule
contiguous
commonly
owned
holdings
must
combined
takings
clause
analysis
see
brief
petitioners
oes
whole
concept
establish
rule
two
legally
distinct
commonly
owned
contiguous
parcels
must
combined
takings
analysis
purposes
appear
case
however
precedent
relied
appeals
addressed
multiple
factors
treating
contiguous
properties
one
parcel
see
app
pet
cert
citing
zealy
waukesha
see
considering
property
whole
part
single
purchase
acres
undeveloped
judgment
furthermore
may
affirmed
ground
permitted
law
record
see
thigpen
roberts
extent
state
treated
two
lots
one
parcel
based
rule
nothing
opinion
approves
methodology
distinct
result
considering
petitioners
property
whole
state
correct
conclude
petitioners
establish
compensable
taking
circumstances
petitioners
suffered
taking
lucas
deprived
economically
beneficial
use
property
see
use
property
residential
purposes
including
enhanced
larger
residential
improvement
see
palazzolo
regulation
permitting
landowner
build
substantial
residence
leave
property
property
lost
economic
value
value
decreased
less
percent
see
lucas
supra
suggesting
even
landowner
percent
loss
may
recover
petitioners
furthermore
suffered
taking
general
test
penn
central
see
expert
appraisal
relied
upon
state
courts
refutes
claim
economic
impact
regulation
severe
petitioners
claim
reasonably
expected
sell
develop
lots
separately
given
regulations
predated
acquisition
lots
finally
governmental
action
reasonable
regulation
enacted
part
coordinated
federal
state
local
effort
preserve
river
surrounding
land
like
ultimate
question
whether
regulation
gone
far
question
proper
parcel
regulatory
takings
cases
solved
simple
test
see
arkansas
game
fish
courts
must
instead
define
parcel
manner
reflects
reasonable
expectations
property
courts
must
strive
consistency
central
purpose
takings
clause
bar
government
forcing
people
alone
bear
public
burdens
fairness
justice
borne
public
whole
armstrong
treating
lot
question
single
parcel
legitimate
purposes
takings
inquiry
supports
conclusion
regulatory
taking
occurred
judgment
wisconsin
appeals
affirmed
ordered
justice
gorsuch
took
part
consideration
decision
case
roberts
dissenting
joseph
murr
et
petitioners
wisconsin
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
wisconsin
district
iii
june
chief
justice
roberts
justice
thomas
justice
alito
join
dissenting
murr
family
owns
two
adjacent
lots
along
lower
croix
river
local
regulation
two
properties
may
sold
developed
separate
lots
neither
contains
sufficiently
large
area
buildable
land
admin
code
today
holds
regulation
effect
taking
requires
compensation
conclusion
trouble
majority
presents
fair
case
murrs
still
make
good
use
lots
ordinance
commonplace
tool
preserve
scenic
areas
lower
croix
river
benefit
landowners
public
alike
majority
goes
astray
however
concluding
definition
private
property
issue
case
turns
elaborate
test
looking
state
local
law
also
physical
characteristics
land
prospective
value
regulated
land
reasonable
expectations
owner
background
customs
whole
legal
tradition
ante
decisions
time
declared
takings
clause
protects
private
property
rights
state
law
creates
defines
securing
established
property
rights
takings
clause
protects
individuals
forced
bear
full
weight
actions
borne
public
large
majority
new
malleable
definition
private
property
adopted
solely
purposes
th
takings
inquiry
ante
undermines
protection
stick
traditional
approach
state
law
defines
boundaries
distinct
parcels
land
boundaries
determine
private
property
issue
regulatory
takings
cases
whether
regulation
effects
taking
property
separate
question
one
common
ownership
adjacent
property
may
taken
account
majority
departs
settled
principles
respectfully
dissent
takings
clause
places
condition
government
power
interfere
property
rights
instructing
private
property
shall
taken
public
use
without
compensation
textually
logically
clause
raises
three
basic
questions
individuals
governments
judges
must
consider
anticipating
deciding
whether
government
provide
reimbursement
actions
first
private
property
government
planned
course
conduct
affect
second
whether
property
taken
public
use
private
property
taken
last
item
business
calculate
compensation
owner
due
step
one
identifying
property
interest
stake
requires
looking
outside
constitution
word
property
takings
clause
means
group
rights
inhering
citizen
relation
thing
right
possess
use
dispose
general
motors
clause
however
provide
definition
rights
particular
case
instead
property
interests
created
dimensions
defined
existing
rules
understandings
stem
independent
source
state
law
ruckelshaus
monsanto
alteration
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
protecting
established
rights
takings
clause
stands
buffer
property
owners
governments
might
naturally
look
put
private
property
work
public
large
government
action
interferes
property
rights
next
question
becomes
whether
interference
amounts
taking
paradigmatic
taking
direct
government
appropriation
physical
invasion
private
property
lingle
chevron
types
actions
give
rise
per
se
taking
perhaps
serious
form
invasion
owner
property
interests
depriving
owner
rights
possess
use
dispose
property
horne
department
agriculture
slip
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
takings
direct
governments
infringe
private
property
interests
public
use
appropriations
regulations
well
compensation
required
one
natural
tendency
human
nature
extend
regulations
last
private
property
disappears
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
regulatory
takings
decisions
recognized
property
may
regulated
certain
extent
regulation
goes
far
recognized
taking
ibid
rule
strikes
balance
property
owners
rights
government
authority
advance
common
good
owners
rest
assured
compensated
particularly
onerous
regulatory
actions
governments
maintain
freedom
adjust
benefits
burdens
property
ownership
without
incurring
crippling
costs
alteration
depending
course
far
far
said
often
enough
answer
question
generally
resists
per
se
rules
rigid
formulas
however
fixed
principles
inquiry
must
conducted
respect
specific
property
keystone
bituminous
coal
assn
debenedictis
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
regulation
denies
economically
beneficial
productive
use
land
interference
categorically
amounts
taking
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
vast
array
regulations
lack
extreme
effect
flexible
approach
fitting
factors
consider
wide
ranging
include
economic
impact
regulation
owner
expectations
character
government
action
ultimate
question
whether
government
imposition
property
forced
owner
bear
public
burdens
fairness
justice
borne
public
whole
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
finally
taking
occurred
remaining
matter
tabulating
compensation
property
owner
entitled
ust
compensation
normally
measured
market
value
property
time
taking
horne
slip
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
regulation
amounts
taking
completely
destroys
property
productive
use
incentive
owners
define
relevant
private
property
narrowly
incentive
threatens
careful
balance
property
rights
government
authority
regulatory
takings
doctrine
strikes
put
terms
familiar
bundle
analogy
strand
bundle
rights
comes
along
owning
real
property
distinct
property
interest
owners
define
relevant
private
property
issue
specific
strand
challenged
regulation
affects
convert
nearly
regulations
per
se
takings
allow
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
held
property
owners
may
establish
simply
showing
denied
ability
exploit
property
interest
case
owner
grand
central
terminal
new
york
city
argued
restriction
owner
ability
add
office
building
atop
station
amounted
taking
air
rights
rejected
narrow
definition
property
issue
concluding
correct
unit
analysis
owner
rights
parcel
whole
owner
possesses
full
property
rights
destruction
one
strand
bundle
taking
aggregate
must
viewed
entirety
andrus
allard
see
preservation
council
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
question
presented
today
case
concerns
parcel
whole
language
penn
central
enigmatic
phrase
created
confusion
identify
relevant
property
regulatory
takings
case
claimant
owns
one
plot
land
impact
regulation
evaluated
respect
individual
plot
respect
adjacent
plots
grouped
together
one
unit
according
majority
answer
question
considering
number
facts
land
regulation
issue
end
result
turns
whether
factors
lead
landowner
anticipate
holdings
treated
one
parcel
instead
separate
tracts
ante
think
answer
far
straightforward
state
laws
define
boundaries
distinct
units
land
boundaries
exceptional
circumstances
determine
parcel
issue
even
regulatory
takings
cases
first
step
takings
clause
analysis
still
identify
relevant
private
property
create
property
rights
respect
particular
things
context
real
property
things
horizontally
bounded
plots
land
interest
real
property
defined
metes
bounds
describe
geographic
dimensions
may
define
plots
differently
using
metes
bounds
others
using
government
surveys
recorded
plats
subdivision
maps
see
thomas
thompson
real
property
ed
powell
real
property
wolf
ed
definition
property
draws
basic
line
wodehouse
put
meum
tuum
question
owns
pretty
important
rules
must
provide
readily
ascertainable
definition
land
particular
bundle
rights
attaches
vary
depending
upon
purpose
issue
see
stat
lots
plat
shall
described
name
plat
lot
block
purposes
including
assessment
taxation
devise
descent
conveyance
following
state
property
lines
also
entirely
consistent
penn
central
requiring
consideration
parcel
whole
response
risk
owners
strategically
pluck
one
strand
bundle
property
rights
air
rights
issue
penn
central
claim
complete
taking
based
strand
alone
risk
strategic
unbundling
present
legally
distinct
parcel
basis
regulatory
takings
claim
state
law
defines
interests
come
along
owning
particular
parcel
property
owners
government
must
take
rights
find
majority
envisions
relying
state
law
create
opportunities
gamesmanship
landowners
former
contends
might
seek
alter
lot
lines
anticipation
regulation
latter
might
pass
law
consolidates
property
avoid
successful
takings
claim
ante
obvious
attempts
alter
legal
landscape
anticipation
lawsuit
unlikely
particularly
difficult
detect
disarm
rejected
strategic
splitting
property
rights
penn
central
courts
faced
attempt
create
definition
private
property
cf
phillips
washington
legal
foundation
state
may
sidestep
takings
clause
disavowing
traditional
property
interests
long
recognized
state
law
relevant
property
identified
real
work
begins
decide
whether
regulation
issue
amounts
taking
courts
focus
effect
regulation
private
property
issue
adjacent
land
common
ownership
may
relevant
inquiry
owner
possession
nearby
lot
instance
shed
light
owner
reasonably
expected
use
parcel
issue
regulation
concludes
government
action
amounts
taking
principles
compensation
may
also
allow
owner
recover
damages
regard
separate
parcel
contiguous
used
conjunction
parcel
issue
smith
hansen
nichols
law
eminent
domain
ch
rev
ed
sum
parcel
whole
requirement
prevents
property
owner
identifying
single
strand
bundle
property
rights
claiming
interest
taken
allowing
strategic
approach
defining
private
property
undermine
balance
struck
regulatory
takings
cases
instead
state
law
creates
distinct
parcels
land
defines
rights
come
along
owning
parcels
established
bundles
rights
define
private
property
regulatory
takings
cases
ownership
contiguous
properties
may
bear
whether
person
plot
taken
penn
central
provides
basis
disregarding
state
property
lines
identifying
parcel
whole
ii
lesson
majority
draws
penn
central
defining
proper
parcel
regulatory
takings
cases
solved
simple
test
ante
following
stand
simplicity
majority
lists
complex
set
factors
theoretically
designed
reveal
whether
hypothetical
landowner
might
expect
property
treated
one
parcel
instead
separate
tracts
ante
factors
says
majority
show
lots
murrs
property
constitute
single
parcel
local
ordinance
requiring
murrs
develop
sell
lots
pair
constitute
taking
deciding
lots
single
parcel
majority
focuses
importance
ordinance
issue
extent
murrs
may
especially
surprised
unduly
harmed
application
ordinance
property
issues
considered
deciding
regulation
constitutes
taking
cramming
definition
private
property
undermines
effectiveness
takings
clause
check
government
power
shift
cost
public
life
onto
private
individuals
problem
begins
majority
loses
track
basic
structure
claims
takings
clause
true
referred
regulatory
takings
claims
involving
essentially
ad
hoc
factual
inquiries
conducted
investigations
assessing
question
constitutes
penn
central
ruckelshaus
emphasis
added
see
generally
eschewed
set
formula
determining
far
far
emphasis
added
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
even
reach
ad
hoc
penn
central
framework
determining
regulation
deny
productive
use
parcel
see
inquiries
presuppose
relevant
private
property
already
identified
see
hodel
virginia
surface
mining
reclamation
explaining
hese
hoc
factual
inquiries
must
conducted
respect
specific
property
simple
reason
majority
cite
single
instance
made
identification
relying
anything
state
property
principles
never
done
departing
state
property
principles
majority
authorizes
governments
precisely
rejected
penn
central
create
definition
property
designed
claim
takings
clause
whenever
possible
governments
regulatory
takings
cases
ask
courts
aggregate
legally
distinct
properties
one
parcel
solely
purposes
resisting
particular
claim
majority
test
identifying
parcel
whole
cases
turn
reasonableness
regulation
applied
claimant
result
government
regulatory
interests
come
play
twice
first
identifying
relevant
parcel
determining
whether
regulation
placed
great
public
burden
property
regulatory
takings
however
nature
pit
common
good
interests
inherent
imbalance
clash
interests
widespread
benefits
regulation
often
appear
far
weightier
isolated
losses
suffered
individuals
looking
bigger
picture
overall
societal
good
economic
system
grounded
private
property
appear
abstract
cast
concrete
regulatory
problem
face
imbalance
takings
clause
prevents
public
loading
upon
one
individual
share
burdens
government
monongahela
nav
considering
effect
regulation
specific
property
rights
established
state
law
majority
approach
undermines
protection
defining
property
engaging
ad
hoc
consideration
individual
community
interests
result
government
goals
shape
playing
field
contest
whether
challenged
regulation
goes
far
even
gets
underway
suppose
example
person
buys
two
distinct
plots
land
known
lots
two
different
owners
lot
landlocked
neighboring
lot
shares
border
local
beach
soon
comes
light
however
beach
nesting
habitat
species
turtle
protect
species
state
government
passes
regulation
preventing
development
recreation
areas
abutting
beach
including
lot
lot
became
subject
regulatory
takings
claim
purchaser
strong
case
per
se
taking
even
accounting
owner
possession
property
lot
remaining
economic
value
productive
use
majority
approach
government
argue
based
circumstances
nature
regulation
lots
considered
one
parcel
argument
succeeds
owner
per
se
takings
claim
gone
left
roll
dice
penn
central
balancing
framework
second
time
throw
reasonableness
government
regulatory
action
balance
majority
assures
test
efining
property
necessarily
preordain
outcome
every
case
ante
emphasis
added
underscored
language
cheapens
assurance
framework
laid
today
provides
little
guidance
identifying
whether
expectations
property
ownership
lead
landowner
anticipate
holdings
treated
one
parcel
instead
separate
tracts
ante
instead
majority
approach
lead
definitions
parcel
far
reasonableness
applying
challenged
regulation
particular
landowner
result
clear
double
counting
tip
scales
favor
government
reasonable
government
regulation
anticipated
landowner
relevant
parcel
defined
consistent
regulation
deciding
whether
taking
second
step
analysis
regulation
seem
eminently
reasonable
given
impact
parcel
assures
us
necessarily
every
case
surely
moreover
given
focus
particular
challenged
regulation
majority
approach
must
mean
two
lots
might
single
parcel
one
takings
claim
separate
parcels
another
see
ante
another
opportunity
gerrymander
definition
private
property
defeat
takings
claim
majority
also
emphasizes
courts
trying
identify
relevant
parcel
must
strive
ensure
people
alone
bear
public
burdens
fairness
justice
borne
public
whole
ante
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
refrain
traditional
touchstone
spotting
taking
defining
private
property
put
simply
today
decision
knocks
definition
private
property
loose
foundation
stable
state
law
rules
throws
maelstrom
multiple
factors
come
play
second
step
takings
analysis
result
majority
new
framework
compromises
takings
clause
barrier
individuals
press
public
interest
iii
staying
state
law
approach
defining
private
property
make
job
case
fairly
easy
murr
siblings
acquired
lot
lot
year
later
lots
fell
common
ownership
challenged
ordinance
prevented
sold
developed
separate
lots
neither
contained
sufficiently
large
area
buildable
land
admin
code
murrs
argued
ordinance
amounted
taking
lot
state
wisconsin
croix
county
proposed
lots
together
count
relevant
parcel
trial
sided
state
county
wisconsin
appeals
affirmed
rather
considering
whether
lots
separate
parcels
wisconsin
law
however
appeals
adopted
approach
defining
relevant
parcel
see
wi
app
unpublished
opinion
app
pet
cert
framing
issue
whether
contiguous
property
analytically
divisible
purposes
regulatory
takings
claim
relying
called
rule
regulatory
takings
cases
explained
contiguous
property
common
ownership
considered
whole
regardless
number
parcels
contained
therein
lots
side
side
owned
murrs
case
straightforward
two
lots
one
parcel
regulatory
takings
analysis
therefore
evaluated
effect
ordinance
two
lots
considered
together
see
wisconsin
appeals
wrong
apply
definition
property
issue
instead
asked
whether
general
state
law
principles
lots
legally
distinct
parcels
land
therefore
vacate
judgment
remand
identify
relevant
property
using
ordinary
principles
wisconsin
property
law
making
state
law
determination
next
step
determine
whether
challenged
ordinance
amounts
taking
lot
legally
distinct
parcel
state
law
appeals
perform
takings
analysis
anew
still
consider
many
issues
majority
finds
important
majority
instance
notes
ordinance
murrs
use
lot
recreational
space
location
improvements
valuable
addition
lot
ante
facts
relevant
whether
regulation
denies
economically
beneficial
productive
use
lot
lucas
similarly
majority
touts
benefits
ordinance
observes
murrs
little
use
lot
independent
lot
predicted
lot
regulated
ante
facts
speak
economic
impact
regulation
interference
expectations
character
governmental
action
things
traditionally
consider
penn
central
analysis
careful
however
confine
considerations
question
whether
regulation
constitutes
taking
alexander
hamilton
explained
security
property
one
great
object
government
records
federal
convention
farrand
ed
takings
clause
adopted
ensure
security
protecting
property
rights
exist
state
law
deciding
whether
regulation
gone
far
constitute
taking
one
property
rights
properly
enough
task
relies
much
exercise
judgment
application
logic
macdonald
sommer
frates
yolo
county
alterations
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
basing
definition
property
judgment
call
allows
government
interests
warp
private
rights
takings
clause
supposed
secure
respectfully
dissent
thomas
dissenting
joseph
murr
et
petitioners
wisconsin
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
wisconsin
district
iii
june
justice
thomas
dissenting
join
chief
justice
dissent
correctly
applies
regulatory
takings
precedents
party
asked
us
reconsider
however
never
purported
ground
precedents
constitution
originally
understood
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
announced
general
rule
regulation
goes
far
recognized
taking
since
observed
prior
mahon
generally
thought
takings
clause
reached
appropriation
property
legal
tender
cases
wall
functional
equivalent
ouster
owner
possession
transportation
chicago
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
view
desirable
us
take
fresh
look
regulatory
takings
jurisprudence
see
whether
grounded
original
public
meaning
takings
clause
fifth
amendment
privileges
immunities
clause
fourteenth
amendment
see
generally
rappaport
originalism
regulatory
takings
fifth
amendment
may
protect
regulatory
takings
fourteenth
amendment
may
san
diego
rev
describing
debate
among
scholars
questions