Skip to main content
Supreme Court· 6/23/2017

Murr v. Wisconsin

Citations

  • 582 U.S. 383
  • 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4046
  • 137 S. Ct. 1933
  • 198 L. Ed. 2d 497
  • 2017 D.A.R. 6029
  • 47 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20082
  • 85 U.S.L.W. 4441
  • 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 717
  • 2017 WL 2694699
  • 84 ERC (BNA) 1713

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that courts should not “limit the parcel [at issue] in an artificial manner to the portion of the property targeted by the challenged regulation”
  • finding that “the 21 economic impact of the regulation is [not] severe” because, inter alia, the plaintiffs “can use the 22 property for residential purposes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anthony Kennedy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

73 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Murr v. Wisconsin

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.