{"id":3671,"date":"2016-02-22T01:41:13","date_gmt":"2016-02-22T07:41:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=3671"},"modified":"2026-04-17T15:28:08","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T20:28:08","slug":"regulatory-takings-case-scotus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Watch 2016: Murr v. Wisconsin"},"content":{"rendered":"

Welcome to Part II in our SCOTUS Watch blog series where we are looking at US Supreme Court cases this term that could have affect agriculture. \u00a0If you missed Part I, click here.<\/p>\n

\"Supreme<\/a><\/p>\n

Today, we will take a look at\u00a0Murr v. Wisconsin<\/em>, a case involving how separate parcels of land should be treated when conducting a regulatory takings analysis.<\/p>\n

Legal Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

The US Constitution provides that private property may not be \u201ctaken for public use, without just compensation.\u201d \u00a0A government regulation constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment if it \u201cgoes too far.\u201d \u00a0 \u00a0There are essentially three types of regulatory takings cases, known based upon their seminal US Supreme Court case names: \u00a0Penn Central<\/em>,\u00a0Lucas<\/em>, and\u00a0Loretto<\/em>. \u00a0This case involves a\u00a0Lucas<\/em> taking analysis.<\/p>\n

A\u00a0Lucas<\/em> taking occurs where a landowner is deprived of \u201call economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good\u201d of the parcel of land. \u00a0In\u00a0Lucas<\/em> a state law prohibited a landowner from building any habitable structures on the property. \u00a0The US Supreme Court\u00a0found that this regulation deprived the landowner of all economically beneficial uses of his land, and that a taking occurred. \u00a0In making this analysis, courts consider the value of the “parcel as a whole” rather than dividing the parcel into discrete segments.<\/p>\n

Factual Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Murr siblings\u00a0own two 1-acre waterfront parcels in the St. Croix Subdivision in Wisconsin. \u00a0The parcels were purchased separately by the Murrs’ parents in 1959 (Lot F) and 1963 (Lot E). \u00a0The family built a cabin on Lot F, but Lot E remained undeveloped. \u00a0In 1994, ownership of Lot F was transferred to the siblings, and ownership of Lot E was likewise transferred in 1995.<\/p>\n

In 2004, the siblings planned to sell Lot E and use the proceeds to upgrade the cabin on Lot F. \u00a0This is when they realized\u00a0that City regulations, passed in 1975, prohibited them from selling or developing Lot E. \u00a0In order for development, a “net project area” of 1 acre was required. \u00a0Lot E, although 1 acre in size, did not meet this requirement when the non-project area was subtracted. \u00a0This can include floodplains, slope preservation zones, and rights of way. \u00a0A grandfather clause exists, but only for property owned by someone who does not own an abutting parcel. \u00a0Because the Murrs own both Lots E and F, the grandfather provision does not apply and they cannot develop the land.<\/p>\n

After unsuccessfully seeking a variance from this requirement, the Murrs filed an inverse compensation suit contending that the prohibition on selling or developing the property leaves it economically useless and results in a taking of their private property rights with regard to Lot E.<\/p>\n

Key to determining whether a taking occurred is ascertaining what constitutes the parcel of land to be considered. \u00a0The Murrs argue the parcel is only Lot E, while the government argues that lots E and F should be considered together as one parcel. \u00a0This is a key issue when conducting a\u00a0Lucas\u00a0<\/em>analysis. \u00a0If the parcel is Lot E only, then it appears much more likely the Murrs have been deprived of all beneficial use. \u00a0If, on the other hand, the parcel is Lots E and F, all economic uses are likely not lost due to the existing cabin on Lot F.<\/p>\n

Lower Court Opinions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The trial court dismissed the claim on summary judgment, finding there was no regulatory taking as a matter of law.<\/p>\n

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals sided with the government, finding that because the Murrs owned both contiguous parcels, the “parcel” for a takings analysis was correctly analyzed as both Lots E and F together as one parcel. \u00a0Specifically, the Court of Appeals states that “contiguous property under common ownership is considered as a whole regardless of the number of parcels contained therein.” \u00a0Because of this view, the Court of Appeals found that no taking occurred because the property–when viewed as one parcel–“retains beneficial and practical use as a residential lot.”<\/p>\n

The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined review of the case, leaving the Court of Appeals decision to stand.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court Case<\/strong><\/p>\n

The question presented to the US Supreme Court is: \u00a0“In a regulatory takings case, does the ‘parcel as a whole’ concept establish a rule that two legally distinct, but commonly owned contiguous parcels must be combined for takings analysis purposes?” \u00a0Courts across the country are in conflict on this issue–likely a strong incentive for the US Supreme Court to take this case. \u00a0Wisconsin and Michigan have taken the same approach that separate lots are one parcel if there exists common ownership. \u00a0Massachusetts has established a rebuttable presumption in favor of one parcel. \u00a0Florida takes the opposite approach, having a rebuttable presumption that lots are separate parcels. \u00a0Ohio and Idaho have treated parcels separately in similar situations.<\/p>\n

The SCOTUS Blog has a case page <\/a>where updates are posted. \u00a0To see a copy of the Petition for Cert, click here<\/a>. \u00a0The response brief may be viewed here<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0To see the plaintiff’s Reply, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Why Do We Care?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although the issue in this case seems technical, it can have a huge impact on regulatory takings cases. \u00a0In the Murr<\/em> case, for example, the answer to whether these lots should be considered one or two parcels will likely also determine whether the Murrs are successful in their takings claim and, thus, whether they are entitled to just compensation. \u00a0And, frequently in regulatory takings cases, this simple technical question will have this same major impact. \u00a0We need to be a clear answer as to how separate parcels adjoining one another under common ownership will be treated for regulatory takings purposes, and it appears that the US Supreme Court will give us one this term.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Welcome to Part II in our SCOTUS Watch blog series where we are looking at US Supreme Court cases this term that could have affect agriculture. \u00a0If you missed Part I, click here. Today, we will take a look at\u00a0Murr v. Wisconsin, a case involving how separate parcels of land should be treated when conducting a regulatory takings analysis. Legal Background The US Constitution provides that private property may not be \u201ctaken for public use, without just compensation.\u201d \u00a0A government regulation constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment… Read More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2443,"featured_media":1763,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3671","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-scotus-watch"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nSCOTUS Watch 2016: Murr v. Wisconsin - Texas Agriculture Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SCOTUS Watch 2016: Murr v. Wisconsin - Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Welcome to Part II in our SCOTUS Watch blog series where we are looking at US Supreme Court cases this term that could have affect agriculture. \u00a0If you missed Part I, click here. Today, we will take a look at\u00a0Murr v. Wisconsin, a case involving how separate parcels of land should be treated when conducting a regulatory takings analysis. Legal Background The US Constitution provides that private property may not be \u201ctaken for public use, without just compensation.\u201d \u00a0A government regulation constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment... Read More →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-02-22T07:41:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-17T20:28:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2014\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-e1405614825279.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2448\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"3264\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/22\\\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/22\\\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626\"},\"headline\":\"SCOTUS Watch 2016: Murr v. Wisconsin\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-02-22T07:41:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:28:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/22\\\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":949,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/22\\\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2014\\\/07\\\/Supreme-Court-Building-e1405614825279.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"SCOTUS Watch\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/22\\\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/22\\\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCOTUS Watch 2016: Murr v. Wisconsin - Texas Agriculture Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/22\\\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/22\\\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2014\\\/07\\\/Supreme-Court-Building-e1405614825279.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-02-22T07:41:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:28:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/22\\\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/22\\\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/22\\\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2014\\\/07\\\/Supreme-Court-Building-e1405614825279.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2014\\\/07\\\/Supreme-Court-Building-e1405614825279.jpg\",\"width\":2448,\"height\":3264},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2016\\\/02\\\/22\\\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SCOTUS Watch 2016: Murr v. Wisconsin\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"description\":\"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"width\":400,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/texasaglaw\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/tiffdowell\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626\",\"name\":\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/author\\\/tiffany-dowelllashmet\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SCOTUS Watch 2016: Murr v. Wisconsin - Texas Agriculture Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SCOTUS Watch 2016: Murr v. Wisconsin - Texas Agriculture Law","og_description":"Welcome to Part II in our SCOTUS Watch blog series where we are looking at US Supreme Court cases this term that could have affect agriculture. \u00a0If you missed Part I, click here. Today, we will take a look at\u00a0Murr v. Wisconsin, a case involving how separate parcels of land should be treated when conducting a regulatory takings analysis. Legal Background The US Constitution provides that private property may not be \u201ctaken for public use, without just compensation.\u201d \u00a0A government regulation constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment... Read More →","og_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/","og_site_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","article_published_time":"2016-02-22T07:41:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-17T20:28:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2448,"height":3264,"url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2014\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-e1405614825279.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@tiffdowell","twitter_site":"@tiffdowell","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/"},"author":{"name":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626"},"headline":"SCOTUS Watch 2016: Murr v. Wisconsin","datePublished":"2016-02-22T07:41:13+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:28:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/"},"wordCount":949,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2014\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-e1405614825279.jpg","articleSection":["SCOTUS Watch"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/","name":"SCOTUS Watch 2016: Murr v. Wisconsin - Texas Agriculture Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2014\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-e1405614825279.jpg","datePublished":"2016-02-22T07:41:13+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:28:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2014\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-e1405614825279.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2014\/07\/Supreme-Court-Building-e1405614825279.jpg","width":2448,"height":3264},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2016\/02\/22\/regulatory-takings-case-scotus\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SCOTUS Watch 2016: Murr v. Wisconsin"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","description":"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","width":400,"height":400,"caption":"Texas Agriculture Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","https:\/\/x.com\/tiffdowell","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626","name":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/author\/tiffany-dowelllashmet\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3671","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2443"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3671"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3671\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15699,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3671\/revisions\/15699"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1763"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3671"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}