Legal Opinion · Dissent

Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership v. City of Madison

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 19, 2018No. 2016AP000537Published

1Dissent

REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J. (dissenting).

¶ 47 "Property rights are necessary to preserve freedom, for property ownership empowers persons to shape and to plan their own destiny in a world where governments are always eager to do so for them." Murr v. Wisconsin, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1933, 1943, 198 L.Ed.2d 497 (2017). The majority *398allows the constructive taking of Adams Outdoor's real property by misapprehending the property interest at issue to be a "right to visibility" rather than the permit for the west-facing billboard. See, e.g., Adams Outdoor Advert., Ltd. v. City of Madison, 2006 WI…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Shepard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  2. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Dolan v. City of TigardSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Palazzolo v. Rhode IslandSupreme Court of the United States · 2001

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API