Publication Date



Arizona Law Review


In Murr v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court outlined a process for ascertaining the denominator in takings cases – an issue that arises both with respect to Penn Central takings claims and Lucas takings claims. The underpinnings of Penn Central claims and Lucas claims are not identical; Penn Central’s primary concern is assuring fairness to landowners, while the focus of Lucas is on restricting government efforts to bypass the condemnation process. Although this difference in focus might suggest a difference in appropriate denominator, the Court’s multi-factor balancing approach apparently applies to all takings claims. Although the Court’s approach is consistent with Penn Central objectives, it is less consistent with Lucas objectives, and reduces the likelihood that Lucas claims will be successful.At the same time, the Court’s opinion, if taken literally, appears to break both with basic federalism principles and with the Court’s own doctrine by rejecting state law as the source for the takings denominator. Closer analysis reveals, however, that the factors outlined by the Court remain closely tied to state law, resulting in less of a break with principle and precedent than suggested by Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent.



First Page



Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law





Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.