Skip to main content

Supreme Court Rules against Wisconsin Family in Property Rights Case

Share This article

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled against landowners in a property dispute between one family and the state of Wisconsin.

In a 5-3 decision, the high court sided with a decision by St. Croix County to merge two adjoining properties owned by the Murr family.

Members of the family argued that decision blocked their ability to sell a vacant lot bequeathed to four siblings from their deceased parents.

Check back soon for CBN's Erik Rosales's in-depth video report

But a state appeals court rejected their claim, ruling that "contiguous property under common ownership is considered as a whole."

Writing for the majority Friday, Justice Anthony Kennedy affirmed the lower court ruling: "Considering petitioners' property as a whole, the state court was correct to conclude that petitioners cannot establish a compensable taking. [The Murrs] have not suffered a taking ... as they have not been deprived of all economically beneficial use of their property."

The family released a statement following the ruling:

"My brothers and sister and I are certainly disappointed in today's ruling," said Donna Murr, one of the Murr siblings. "Although the outcome was not what we had hoped for, we believe our case will demonstrate the importance of taking a stand and protecting property rights through the court system when necessary."

"This is an unfortunate decision for the Murrs, and all property owners," said John Groen, who represented the Murrs as general counsel for the Pacific Legal Foundation. "We are disappointed that the court did not recognize the fundamental unfairness to the Murrs of having their separate properties combined, simply to avoid the protection of the Takings Clause."

The court's conservative bloc – Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas – agreed with the family.

"As I see it, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was wrong to apply a takings-specific definition of the property at issue," wrote Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent. "Instead, the court should have asked whether, under general state law principles, Lots E and F are legally distinct parcels of land. I would therefore vacate the judgment below and remand for the court to identify the relevant property using ordinary principles of Wisconsin property law."

Justice Neil Gorsuch, nominated by President Donald Trump and sworn in last April, did not participate in the decision.

Share This article

About The Author

John
Jessup

Como corresponsal basado en la capital del país, John Jessup cubre temas que van desde la política de Washington D.C. hasta la economía y lo más reciente sobre el clima. El reporta paraThe 700 Club, Newswatch, y presenta cortos noticiosos para afiliadas de CBN a través del país. El trabajo de John en transmisiones de televisión le ha otorgado varios premios en reporteo, producción y coordinación de coberturas de elecciones. Desde que se unió a CBN News, ha reportado desde varios lugares, incluyendo partes de Mississippi, Louisiana, y Texas afectadas por el Huracán Katrina. John también viajó a