This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Mr. Tseyltin, the State argues that the lots have merged under State law and that the lot line between Lot E and Lot F has no continuing legal relevance.
According to Petitioners (counsel MR. LAZARUS), according to Petitioners (counsel MR. LAZARUS), petitioners contend that the value of Lot E to the Murrs, together with Lot F, defines the burden, and that ownership of only Lot E would trigger a hardship exemption allowing construction.
The State says the law aims to phase out substandard lots without interfering with current investment‑backed expectations, and that the phase‑out is triggered only when lots are in common ownership.
Background and question before the Court
The dispute centers on the regulatory treatment of Lot E and its relationship to Lot F.
What each side argues
Petitioners’ Position
According to Petitioners (counsel MR. LAZARUS), according to Petitioners (counsel MR. LAZARUS), petitioners contend that the value of Lot E to the Murrs, together with Lot F, defines the burden, and that ownership of only Lot E would trigger a hardship exemption allowing construction.
Respondent’s Position
The State says the law’s purpose is to phase out substandard lots without disrupting existing investment‑backed expectations, and that the phase‑out is triggered only when lots are in common ownership.
According to Mr. Tseyltin, the State argues that the lots have merged for all relevant purposes under State law, rendering the lot line between Lot E and Lot F legally irrelevant.
According to St. Croix County, st. Croix County notes that the combined value of the two parcels for one house is $698,000, whereas separate houses on each parcel would be valued at $771,000.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced the hearing of case 15‑214, Murr v. Wisconsin.
Justice Kennedy asked a hypothetical question, indicating it was not about the case.
Justice Kagan requested to ask a question of counsel.
Justice Kennedy asked how the Court would interpret the issue.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer offered a hypothetical involving multiple owners of a coal column to explore compensation principles.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor raised a concern about appraisal figures and the value of a lot that cannot be built upon.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts noted temporal considerations when discussing property ownership.
- [1] 76c0f354e31b21cc320f-r1-e3ac643b4d24b999.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 76c0f354e31b21cc320f-r1-e3ac643b4d24b999.pdf, p. 3
- [3] 76c0f354e31b21cc320f-r1-e3ac643b4d24b999.pdf, p. 3
- [4] 76c0f354e31b21cc320f-r1-e3ac643b4d24b999.pdf, p. 40
- [5] 76c0f354e31b21cc320f-r1-e3ac643b4d24b999.pdf, p. 28
- [6] 76c0f354e31b21cc320f-r1-e3ac643b4d24b999.pdf, p. 56
- [7] 76c0f354e31b21cc320f-r1-e3ac643b4d24b999.pdf, p. 60
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 76c0f354e31b21cc320f-r1-e3ac643b4d24b999.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.