In Clarmar Realty Co. v. Redevelopment Authority, 129 Wis. 2d 81, 383 N.W.2d 890 (1986), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin explicitly rejected the requirement of unity of ownership as a necessary prerequisite to assemblage. The court reviewed the federal constitutional case that provided the roots of assemblage doctrine, which did not limit its application to commonly owned parcels. Id. at 88-89, citing Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 254-55, 54 S. Ct. 704, 78 L. Ed. 1236 (1934). It also considered prior analogous case law allowing consideration of prospective uses of land as factors affecting market value, as long as those uses were reasonably likely to have occurred. Clarmar Realty Co. v. Redevelopment Authority, supra, 129 Wis.2d at 89-91. The court "concluded that the traditional application of assemblage, which does not contain the limitation of unity of ownership, better serves the overriding purpose of compensating deprived property owners because it permits property owners to establish a legitimate element of the fair market value of the property, i.e., its value in conjunction with adjacent land to which the owners may or may not hold title." 129 Wis.2d at 92-93.