Murr v. Wisconsin
137 S. Ct. 1933 · Decided June 23, 2017 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Murr v. Wisconsin was decided on June 23, 2017 by a vote of 5–3. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
- CourtListener (Free Law Project) — opinion text
- Supreme Court of the United States — slip opinions, October Term 2016
Case details
- Citations
- 137 S. Ct. 1933 · 198 L. Ed. 2d 497 · 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4046
- Docket number
- 15-214
- Decided
- June 23, 2017
- Argued
- March 20, 2017
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–3
- Majority opinion
- Anthony M. Kennedy
- Opinion assigned by
- Anthony M. Kennedy
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Majority | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Majority | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Dissent | |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor | Majority | |
| Justice Elena Kagan | Majority |
Did not participate: Neil M. Gorsuch.
Full case caption
Murr v. Wisconsin
SCDB identifiers: case 2016-051, docket 2016-051-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Nelson v. ColoradoLaw held unconstitutional
- Timbs v. Indiana
- Knick v. Township of ScottAltered precedent
- Horne v. Department of AgricultureLaw held unconstitutional
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.
- Cedar Point Nursery v. HassidLaw held unconstitutional
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Agins et Ux. v. City of Tiburon
- Gurley v. Rhoden
- City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.
- United States v. Fuller et Ux.
- United States v. Grand River Dam Authority
- General Box Co. v. United States
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Michael Damon Rippo v. Renee Baker
- Nelson v. ColoradoLaw held unconstitutional
- BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Ca.
- Pavan v. SmithLaw held unconstitutional
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error