¶29 The United States Supreme Court has recognized a landowner's right to substantive due process in zoning cases. See Pearson, 961 F.2d at 1217, 1220 (citing to Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 263 (1977); Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 187 (1928); [Village of] Euclid[, Ohio] v. Ambler Realty Co., 272
U.S. 365, ordinance
Court has stated, "a zoning its 'provisions are clearly
arbitrary and unreasonable having public health, safety, morals or Wis. 2d 610, ¶45 (quoting Euclid,
no substantial relation to general welfare.'" Thorp, 272 U.S. at 395).
claim that a
¶30 However, when substantive due process
deprived protected. must show that interest that Wis. 2d 610, ¶46 property interest he is or she has been constitutionally (citing Penterman, 211 Wis. 2d is constitutionally protected
landowner's a plaintiff a property
Thorp, 480). 'state Thorp, 15
235 "A law 235
But see Thorp v.
Town of Lebanon,
Wis. 2d 610,
Chief Justice Abrahamson, wrote:
joined by Justices Bradley and Sykes,
The majority [in Thorp] dismisses the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim based on the alleged violation of Wis. Stat. § 60.61(4) by noting that the statute does not secure plaintiffs with property rights in their land. [Thorp] Majority op. at ¶48.
The opinion's language suggests that
statutorily created right to
plaintiffs need a property interest