On Demand Audio

Murr v. Wisconsin: How Does the Supreme Court Define Property in Takings Litigation?

(954 reviews)

Produced on March 05, 2018

Taught by
$ 89 Real Estate and Environmental In Stock
Get started now

$299 / year - Access to this Course and 1,500+ Lawline courses


Course Information

Time 1h
Difficulty Intermediate
Topics covered in this course: Real Estate Environmental

Course Description

Claims for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause (and its state law counterparts), which are sometimes called “inverse condemnation” claims, present a variety of complex and fact-intensive issues. One of the most fundamental is how to define the “property” that a court should consider when determining whether a compensable taking has occurred. Surprisingly, until last June’s decision in Murr v. Wisconsin the U.S. Supreme Court had never addressed this important question. Although the Court had said several times that in addressing takings claims courts must consider “the parcel as a whole,” the meaning of that phrase remained unclear, and lower courts had struggled to define it. In Murr, the Court finally provided significant guidance regarding how to define the property that the Takings Clause protects. But it remains to be seen whether lower courts find that guidance sufficient to clarify the rather muddled case law that had built up in the years preceding Murr.

Attorney Jerry Stouck is a nationally-recognized expert in Fifth Amendment takings cases. In addition to litigating such cases, he frequently speaks and writes on takings and other property rights issues. The federal government asked the Supreme Court to hear one of his takings cases along with Murr. Although the Court eventually denied cert. in that case, its long history – and relationship to the property definition issues the Court addressed in Murr – has given Jerry the opportunity to analyze and reflect on Murr’s  significance to the overall body of takings jurisprudence. He will provide not only an informed understanding of the Murr decision, but also a critical look at what Murr leaves open for further litigation in this complicated and evolving area of law.

Learning Objectives:

  1. Identify the “parcel as a whole” or “relevant parcel” issue, and why it is so important in takings cases, particularly those involving real property
  2. Review the several previous Supreme Court decisions that have touched on this important issue, but have served only to obscure (rather than promote) its resolution
  3. Appreciate the varied and conflicting approaches that lower courts have taken to the relevant parcel issue
  4. Obtain a thorough understanding of the decision in Murr v. Wisconsin, as well as the dissent’s criticisms of it
  5. Recognize the issues that Murr leaves open for further litigation as courts attempt to apply Murr in diverse situations

Credit Information

After completing this course, Lawline will report your attendance information to {{ accredMasterState.state.name }}. Please ensure your license number is filled out in your profile to ensure timely reporting. For more information, see our {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} CLE Requirements page . After completing this course, {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} attorneys self-report their attendance and CLE compliance. For more information on how to report your CLE courses, see our {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} CLE Requirements FAQ .


Jerry Stouck

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Jerry Stouck has more than 35 years of trial and appellate litigation experience in a wide range of cases and courts. He has particular experience in complex business, regulatory and environmental disputes with government agencies, and is Chair of the firm's Federal Regulatory and Administrative Law practice group. Jerry regularly challenges federal agency action under various regulatory regimes, and has represented the lead parties in several very large and important cases seeking monetary relief from the federal government. He also handles environmental and land use litigation, including related contract/commercial disputes, and has extensive experience with eminent domain and Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claims. Jerry appears frequently in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and Federal Circuit, in the D.C. federal district court and D.C. Circuit, and in other trial and appellate courts across the country.


Jeffrey H.

Really excellent presentation with a clear analysis.

Eric L.

Good expertise from participation in cases. Reasonably objective.

Zachary S.

Excellent explanation of a difficult case

Nicholas D.

Nice presentation.

James H S.

Not what I expected, but a very thorough presentation.

James C.

I've taken dozens and dozens of Lawline CLE courses. This program is one of a handful that I consider to be the very best of the offerings. Excellent presentation by Mr. Strouck.

Nathan C.

Excellent and insightful analysis.

David K.

Excellent analysis

Jamey B.

Focused presentation.

John M.

Best I've seen. Excellent.

Geoffrey W.

Excellent. Very clear and concise explanation of the decision.

Christine H.

Presenter was effective and thorough, very well-spoken, specific, and organized.

Robert K.

this case was well explained by him

Brendan K.

Very good course on an interesting subject.

Steve S.

Very clear, informative course.

Ann B.

i found mr. strouic k very informative and this is not an are of law to which i have been exposed

Anthony V.

Interesting topic.

Chris C.

I like the inclusion of the transcript with the presentation materials. I forgot to mention that on my prior eval, but i think that adds a lot of utility.

gene p.

very interesting subject matter and great presentation of it.

Zachary S.

Very good presentation.

Nancy M.

Guy knows his stuff!

Clarence S.

Excellent presentation of important and complex area of Constitutional/property law.

Mary E G.

Excellent presentation.

Frank C.

Very professional and quite informative

David D.

Very good presentation

carol b.

Speaker was knowledgeable and had a very nice manner of presentation. He is a natural teacher.

Rufus W.

Very informative

Marty D.

Insightful. Comprehensive. Good CLE course.

Emily B.

Marvelous presentation

Fabian G.

Very informative. Thank you.

Mattie A.


Judd J.

Really strong presentation and presenter. Learned alot.

Richard G.

Relevant and timely. Well-presented.

Andrew P.

Interesting topic and presentation

Robert C.

FANTASTIC review of a regulatory takings case!

William B.

Well done.

Pamela C.


joseph b.

Exceptionally well done. The instructor took esoteric material and made it understandable.

David L.

A through discussion of defining points in regulatory takings law.

Richard W.

I have recommended

Tammie M.

Great info. Knowledgeable presenter.

christopher m.

One of the better presentations. Useful for any land use practitioner.

Kevin W.

Wow! Does this guy know his stuff! (That's not the most eloquent comment I've ever made but I think it is quite accurate.)

Hilary J.

Well presented.

Antoine M.

Excellent, professional presentation by attorney and moderator.

Load More