Ryan Gomez
Professor Reilly
POLS 3352
Murrs v. Wisconsin Case Brief
The Murrs are a family in Wisconsin who Bought a piece of land next to a river and built on it, later they bought another piece of land that was next to the original one. When they finally gave the property to their children, the children were bared from selling the property by the government. The government claimed that according to the law, the lands on each own did not reach a net area that could be developed upon. Thus, since the lands were owned by the same person for a long time, the county joined them into one property hence reaching the net area for development. The Murrs sued St Croix county and Wisconsin for breaking the Takings clause of the fifth amendment by refusing to acknowledge the second plot of land as a separate entity. Also, the county did not offer any compensation to the family. Such cases naturally are handled using the Penn Central test. The government numerically proved that if you combine the two plots of land they would only account for half a parcel of land. This simply meant that the second plot of land could not be considered independent. They would let the build anything on the said piece of land, develop it or even sell both …show more content…
coastal Council. This states that with exceptions, the regulation should disqualify any economically useful or productive use of the piece of plot of land. Also, they consider the ad hoc from Penn Central that stated that they consider balancing factors like economic impact the regulation brings the parcel. Eventually, the whole argument boiled down to whether it was reasonable that property ownership and its expectations would lead a person into considering the piece of land separate instead of a parcel. After performing a couple of tests that included a worth test that proved that indeed the plots were justified to be used as a single plot of