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.

Document Type


Publication Date


Publication Information

1984 Wisconsin Law Review 1431-1468