Legal Opinion

Kamrowski v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1966PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

Plaintiffs contend that “scenic easements” cannot constitutionally be taken from them by the state even though just compensation be determined and paid. Their basic attack appears to be that public enjoyment of scenic beauty of certain land is not a public use of such land and that there are not sufficient standards limiting the action of the commission.

There is a considerable body of legislative history which clarifies the concept of “scenic easement.”

In 1939, the legislature enacted sec. 84.105, Stats. It declared the intent of assenting to any act of Congress authorizing the development of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Berman v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  2. Muench v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  3. State Ex Rel. Saveland Park Holding Corp. v. WielandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  4. David Jeffrey Co. v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Smith v. CameronOregon Supreme Court · 1922

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Finks v. Maine State Highway CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974
  2. Buhler v. Racine CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Hardesty v. State Roads CommissionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  4. More-Way North Corp. v. State Highway CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Kamrowski v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967

8 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