Read more

10 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Murr v. Wisconsin. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Murr v. Wisconsin, often where they are interviewed.

Read more

10 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Murr v. Wisconsin. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Murr v. Wisconsin, often where they are interviewed.

Updated daily with the latest episodes

E73: Christina Sandefur - Murr v. Wisconsin and Private Property Rights (1 of 3)

Dr. Dan's Freedom Forum Radio
Episode artwork
Read more

Dr. Dan's guest on this program is Christina Sandefur, JD, Executive Vice President of the Goldwater Institute and co-author of the book "Cornerstone of Liberty." The discussion will cover private property rights and the Supreme Court decision in Murr v. Wisconsin. For more information, see post.

E73: Christina Sandefur - Murr v. Wisconsin (2 of 3)
E73: Christina Sandefur - Murr v. Wisconsin (3 of 3)

Aug 12 2017

21mins

Play

E73: Christina Sandefur - Murr v. Wisconsin and Private Property Rights (2 of 3)

Dr. Dan's Freedom Forum Radio
Episode artwork
Read more

Dr. Dan's guest on this program is Christina Sandefur, JD, Executive Vice President of the Goldwater Institute and co-author of the book "Cornerstone of Liberty." The discussion will cover private property rights and the Supreme Court decision in Murr v. Wisconsin.  For more information, see post.

E73: Christina Sandefur - Murr v. Wisconsin (1 of 3)
E73: Christina Sandefur - Murr v. Wisconsin (3 of 3)

Aug 11 2017

21mins

Play

E73: Christina Sandefur - Murr v. Wisconsin and Private Property Rights (3 of 3)

Dr. Dan's Freedom Forum Radio
Episode artwork
Read more

Dr. Dan's guest on this program is Christina Sandefur, JD, Executive Vice President of the Goldwater Institute and co-author of the book "Cornerstone of Liberty." The discussion will cover private property rights and the Supreme Court decision in Murr v. Wisconsin. For more information, see post.

E73: Christina Sandefur - Murr v. Wisconsin (1 of 3)
E73: Christina Sandefur - Murr v. Wisconsin (2 of 3)

Aug 10 2017

21mins

Play

Murr v. Wisconsin - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast
Episode artwork
Read more
On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Murr v. Wisconsin. In the 1960s the Murrs purchased two adjacent lots (Lots F and E), each over an acre in size, in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. In 1994 and 1995, the parents transferred the parcels to their children and the two lots were merged pursuant to St. Croix County’s code of ordinances, with local rules then barring their separate sale or development. A decade later the Murrs sought to sell Lot E in order to fund construction work on Lot F, but the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment denied a variance from the ordinance barring separate sale or development of the lots. The Murrs sued the state and county, claiming that the ordinance effected an uncompensated taking of their property and deprived them of “all, or practically all, of the use of Lot E because the lot cannot be sold or developed as a separate lot.” The circuit court disagreed and granted summary judgment to the state and county. The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin affirmed, concluding that the Murrs took the properties with constructive knowledge of the resulting restrictions and had not suffered a loss in value of more than 10%. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied further review. -- The question before the United States Supreme Court was whether, in a regulatory taking 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. -- By a vote of 5-3, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that the Wisconsin court was correct to analyze the Murrs’ lots as a single unit and that no compensable taking had occurred. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. -- To discuss the case, we have James S. Burling, who is Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation.

Jul 18 2017

22mins

Play

4. Interview with Professor Ilya Somin to discuss Murr v. Wisconsin, and a Discussion of Sabal Trail case from Florida

Eminent Domain
Episode artwork
Read more

Ilya Somin

In Episode 4, we are joined by Professor Ilya Somin of the George Mason School of Law. Professor Somin is one of the leading thinkers and writers in the eminent domain community. Professor Somin joins us to talk about Murr v. Wisconsin, but also we veer off into other topics, including property rights in China. He was an outstanding guest!

My colleague, Alex LoCasto, also joins to talk about an interesting summary judgment decision in Sabal Trail v. Real Estate out of Florida. The issue was whether federal or state compensation law applies to an interstate pipeline. The best part though is the court’s concluding paragraph. We love judges who have a sense of humor.

Professor Somin routinely posts in the Volokh Conspiracy blog at the Washington Post which can be found here

Professor Somin’s books, including The Grasping Hand and Eminent Domain: A Comparative Perspective can be purchased from several outlets, however, here is a link to Amazon.

Please share your thoughts on the show or this episode with me. I’m on Twitter @J_Clint.

Clint Schumcher’s bio

Alex LoCasto’s bio

More information on the ALI audio seminar on regulatory takings hosted by Robert Thomas can be found here.

More information on the 11th Annual Eminent Domain seminar in Dallas hosted by Eddie Vassallo and Charles Salazar can be found here.

The post Podcast Episode 4 – Interview with Professor Ilya Somin to discuss Murr v. Wisconsin, and a Discussion of Sabal Trail case from Florida appeared first on Eminent Domain Podcast.

Jul 15 2017

40mins

Play

Courthouse Steps: Murr v. Wisconsin Decided

Teleforum
Episode artwork
Read more
On June 23, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Murr v. Wisconsin. This is a regulatory takings case which addressed the question: should two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels be combined, as described in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, for takings analysis purposes? -- In 1960 and 1963, the Murrs purchased two adjacent lots in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, each over an acre in size. In 1994 and 1995, the parents transferred the parcels to their children. These lots became nonconforming due to various setbacks imposed in the 1970s, but a grandfathering provision would have allowed independent and separate uses – but only if the lots were not owned by the same individuals. Seven years later, the children wanted to sell one of the two original lots and were denied permission to do so by the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment. The Murrs sued the state and county and claimed the county’s actions resulted in an uncompensated taking of their property. The trial court granted summary judgement to the state and county and the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin affirmed. -- James Burling, Vice President of Litigation at the Pacific Legal Foundation, joined us to discuss this interesting case and offer his thoughts following the decision. -- Featuring: James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation.

Jun 28 2017

53mins

Play

3. Murr v. Wisconsin and Emerging Issues in Eminent Domain Appraisals with Lance Coyle, MAI

Eminent Domain
Episode artwork
Read more

Lance Coyle, MAI

In Episode 3, Jeff Mead discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Murr v. Wisconsin and the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari in Bay Point Properties v. Mississippi Transportation Commission. Our featured guest is Lance Coyle, former President of the Appraisal Institute. Lance answers the questions: What is an MAI? What is a CCIM? Lance also discusses emerging issues in the appraisal world: (i) how does the appraiser distinguish business value from real property value; and (ii) what does fee simple mean in a valuation context. Lance also discusses the Body of Knowledge Committee of the AI (which sounds really important!). Finally, Lance discusses how the engaging lawyer can assist the real estate appraiser at the outset of the assignment.

Lance can be reached via his website at www.coyleadvisors.com or via email at lance@coyleadvisors.com.

The post Podcast Episode 3 – Murr v. Wisconsin and Emerging Issues in Eminent Domain Appraisals with Lance Coyle, MAI appeared first on Eminent Domain Podcast.

Jun 27 2017

43mins

Play

John Eastman discusses Murr v. Wisconsin on Liberty Watch - 6/25/17

The Claremont Institute
Episode artwork
Read more

On June 25th, Claremont CCJ Founding Director Dr. John Eastman joined Liberty Watch to discuss recent important Supreme Court cases. Dr. Eastman's segment begins at the 24:28 minute mark.

Jun 26 2017

47mins

Play

Courthouse Steps: Supreme Court Oral Arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin

Teleforum
Episode artwork
Read more
On March 20, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Murr v. Wisconsin. This is a regulatory takings case which addresses the question: should two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels be combined, as described in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, for takings analysis purposes? -- In 1960 and 1963, the Murrs purchased two adjacent lots in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, each over an acre in size. In 1994 and 1995, the parents transferred the parcels to their children. These lots became nonconforming due to various setbacks imposed in the 1970s, but a grandfathering provision would have allowed independent and separate uses – but only if the lots were not owned by the same individuals. Seven years later, the children wanted to sell one of the two original lots and were denied permission to do so by the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment. The Murrs sued the state and county and claimed the county’s actions resulted in an uncompensated taking of their property. The trial court granted summary judgement to the state and county and the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin affirmed. -- James Burling, Vice President of Litigation at the Pacific Legal Foundation and Misha Tseytlin, the Solicitor General for the State of Wisconsin, will join us to discuss this interesting case and offer their thoughts following oral argument. -- Featuring: James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation and Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General for the State of Wisconsin.

Mar 22 2017

37mins

Play

Rethinking Regulatory Takings: A Preview of Murr v. Wisconsin on the Eve of Oral Argument

Cato Event Podcast
Episode artwork
Read more
On March 20 the Supreme Court will finally hear oral arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, a property rights case it agreed to take up in January 2016. We don’t know why the Court waited almost 14 months to schedule the case for argument and did not wait an additional month — when Judge Gorsuch might be on the Court — but better now than never. Joseph Murr and his siblings own two side-by-side lakeside lots, one with a recreational cabin and the other left vacant as an investment. Due to land-use restrictions, they allege that Wisconsin has “taken” the vacant lot, which would require the state to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Wisconsin courts rejected this claim by considering the economic use of the two lots combined. The Murr case thus asks how courts should define the “relevant parcel” of land when evaluating regulatory takings. Cato filed a brief in this case, arguing that current regulatory-takings jurisprudence is unclear and puts a thumb on the scale for the government. Another amicus brief, filed by Nevada and eight other states and co-authored by Ilya Somin, argues that the Wisconsin court’s rule “creates significant perverse incentives for both landowners and regulators.” Please join us for a discussion of one of the most important cases of this Supreme Court term on the eve of argument.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Mar 17 2017

1hr 29mins

Play