Here's the article, recently published in the UMKC Law Review with thoughts on Murr v. Wisconsin, the case about the "denominator" issue in regulatory takings cases.
We won't get into it in detail (if you are interested, you can read the article yourself), except to say that therein we offer views of what test the Court should have adopted to analyze whether the Murr family's two parcels should be considered as one parcel for purposes of whether they were denied productive use of their property by Wisconsin's environmental regulations. As you recall the Justice Kennedy authored Murr majority adopted a test with a mishmash of factors (what we waggishly labeled his "social justice warrior" test). The article argues that the Court should have instead applied the old "three unities" test from larger parcel questions in eminent domain. That test focuses on the owner's joint use of the property.
The article also contains some "inside baseball" speculation about what it was that motivated the Justices to even take this case, given the result and the lineup of votes.
Check it out if interested.
And if you are in the law journal game, let it be known that the editors at the UMKC Law Review were some of the best (and easiest) I have dealt with. The submission and consideration process was painless. Their edits and other suggestions were excellent, and even when there were delays, they moved it forward. I'm grateful they were kind enough to accept the article.
Restatement (SCOTUS) of Property - What Happened to Use in Murr v Wisconsin?, 87 UMKC L Rev 891 (2019)
