X hits on this document

139 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

18 / 52

No.

2006AP450

the ordinance is entitled to every presumption in favor of its

validity."

Highway

100

Auto

Wreckers,

Inc.

v.

City

of

West

Allis, Young,

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,

Wisconsin).

13

"Consequently,

although a

court may

the the

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.

its judgment

for that of the

zoning

of statutory

authorization."

Buhler,

¶27

Nonetheless,

a properly enacted ordinance must satisfy

constitutional 961 F.2d 1211,

requirements. 1223 (6th Cir.

Pearson v. City of 1992) (stating that

Grand "the

Blanc, zoning

power is not infinite within constitutional

and unchallengeable; it 'must be

limits'").

Land

use

litigation

exercised generally

arises

out

of

the manner

"in which

classify at 1-5.

land into zoning districts." Constitutional challenges may

zoning text

Mandelker, arise, for

and ordinance supra, § 1.04, example, under

the takings, due state and federal

process,

or

equal

protection

constitutions.

Pearson,

961

clauses

F.2d

at

of

the

1215-16;

see

generally

Mandelker,

Framework."

Substantive

supra,

ch.

2,

due

process

claims

"The with

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.

which are

16

Document info
Document views139
Page views139
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 15:32:33 UTC 2016
Pages52
Paragraphs3975
Words12857

Comments