Eberle v. Dane County Board of Adjustment
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Dissent
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE
¶ 56. (dissenting). A commentator recently described the takings jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court as "a top contender for the dubious title of 'most incoherent area of American law.' "1 Without any acknowledgment of the unsettled nature of takings *644law and without reasoned analysis or explanation, the majority opinion today extends the law of temporary takings into new, uncharted spheres.
¶ 57. The law is undisputed in Wisconsin that the state must compensate for temporary takings. Zinn v. State, 112 Wis. 2d 417, 334 N.W.2d 67 (1983). The question is…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning AgencySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Zinn v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
- Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.