Supreme Court Takings Law Review: Murr v. Wisconsin and Relevant Parcel Analysis
Thursday, October 5, 2017
1:40 p.m. - 3:10 p.m. MDT
CM | 1.50
L | 1.50
In 2017, the Supreme Court is set to decide Murr v. Wisconsin, a closely-watched case that will bring new clarity to one of the more vexing questions in takings law: what is the relevant “denominator,” or parcel of land, in determining whether a taking has occurred? This session will provide background on regulatory takings law, review the Supreme Court’s decision in Murr, and provide practical advice for planners seeking to avoid takings litigation.
1. A general background on takings law, including major U.S. Supreme Court cases and a basic understanding of what constitutes a regulatory taking.
2. The facts and procedural posture of the case of Murr v. Wisconsin.
3. How the outcome in Murr will affect land use planners’ practice, and how land use planners can protect their communities from litigation regarding regulatory takings.
- Overview of Takings Law
- Condemnation, Inverse Condemnation, and Regulatory Takings
- Forms of a regulatory taking: physical occupation of property, categorical taking, and a partial regulatory taking
- Relevant parcel analysis in a partial regulatory taking case: why is it important?
- Murr v. Wisconsin
- Procedural posture
- Practical implications of Murr for local land use planners
- Questions and answers
1. The activity meets a planning-related objective, is unbiased and non-promotional, and will communicate a educational purpose. The session will provide planners with significant background on the law of takings, the forms of regulatory takings, and the reason why the relevant parcel analysis is significant in takings cases. The session will also introduce cases to a new Supreme Court decision.
2. The session will be led by experienced planner-attorneys who have significant experience negotiating, drafting, and implementing development agreements. Materials for the session will include electronic presentations, as well as articles and cases explaining the materials covered in the session. No proprietary information will be used.
3. We will meet this requirement with assistance from the conference organizers.
CM LAW: The activity relates to an area of significant change in the law of regulatory takings, and a topic that has not been finally decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The focus of the session will be on a new takings case, Murr. v. Wisconsin, which is anticipated to have a significant impact on local governments’ ability to restrict development on private property.
Donald Elliott, FAICP
Shelia Booth, firstname.lastname@example.org