Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership v. City of Madison
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Shepard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Dolan v. City of TigardSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Palazzolo v. Rhode IslandSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.