the ordinance is entitled to every presumption in favor of its
6 Wis. 2d 637, supra, § 3.22
646, 96 N.W.2d 85 (1959); see also 1 (discussing the beyond a reasonable doubt
standard in differ with the zoning,
wisdom, or lack thereof, or the desirability of court, because of the fundamental nature of its
power, cannot substitute authority in the absence 33 Wis. 2d at 146-47.
for that of the
a properly enacted ordinance must satisfy
constitutional 961 F.2d 1211,
requirements. 1223 (6th Cir.
Pearson v. City of 1992) (stating that
power is not infinite within constitutional
and unchallengeable; it 'must be
classify at 1-5.
land into zoning districts." Constitutional challenges may
Mandelker, arise, for
and ordinance supra, § 1.04, example, under
the takings, due state and federal
Constitutional regard to land
13 Wisconsin is one of a minority of states that asserts a beyond a reasonable doubt standard to successfully challenge the
constitutionality of a municipal ordinance. § 3.22; see also § 3.20–3.21 (discussing the
1 Young, supra, "fairly debatable
issue" and "clear and convincing evidence" standards, applied in the majority of states.