1984•The William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository (William & Mary)Open access

Inverse Liability of the State of Wisconsin for a de facto "Temporary Taking" as a Result of an Administrative Decision: Zinn v. State

Alemante G. Selassie

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

This Note examines Zinn v. State, a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, which held that plaintiff stated a claim for inverse condemnation against the State of Wisconsin when, as a result of an erroneous quasi-judicial decision by the DNR, plaintiff lost the use of her property for a little longer than a month. This Note takes the position that Zinn represents the growing tendency among courts to enlarge the scope of fact situations in which they will find a taking. Given this tendency, and given that the substantive test in Wisconsin of what constitutes a taking is identical whether a taking occurs as a result of the police power or power of eminent domain, this Note argues that the remedy of inverse condemnation should also be extended to police power takings when the latter produce the same benefits to the Government and cause the same harm to the property owner as would have occurred if the Government had used its power of eminent domain.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This Note examines Zinn v. State, a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, which held that plaintiff stated a claim for inverse condemnation against the State of Wisconsin when, as a result of an erroneous quasi-judicial decision by the DNR, plaintiff lost the use of her property for a little longer than a month. This Note takes the position that Zinn represents the growing tendency among courts to enlarge the scope of fact situations in which they will find a taking. Given this tendency, and given that the substantive test in Wisconsin of what constitutes a taking is identical whether a taking occurs as a result of the police power or power of eminent domain, this Note argues that the remedy of inverse condemnation should also be extended to police power takings when the latter produce the same benefits to the Government and cause the same harm to the property owner as would have occurred if the Government had used its power of eminent domain.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This Note examines Zinn v. State, a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, which held that plaintiff stated a claim for inverse condemnation against the State of Wisconsin when, as a result of an erroneous quasi-judicial decision by the DNR, plaintiff lost the use of her property for a little longer than a month. This Note takes the position that Zinn represents the growing tendency among courts to enlarge the scope of fact situations in which they will find a taking. Given this tendency, and given that the substantive test in Wisconsin of what constitutes a taking is identical whether a taking occurs as a result of the police power or power of eminent domain, this Note argues that the remedy of inverse condemnation should also be extended to police power takings when the latter produce the same benefits to the Government and cause the same harm to the property owner as would have occurred if the Government had used its power of eminent domain.

Key concepts: De facto, State (computer science), Liability, Business, Political science, Law, Law and economics, Sociology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Inverse Liability of the State of Wisconsin for a de facto "Temporary Taking" as a Result of an Administrative Decision: Zinn v. State — Research Paper | ScholarLens