02-22-1977 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r . ^ • ir i 4 I «•\V.: scRTii WESTKr.N REPor.TEP.. 2'i sep.ie:-: »vi'furl lliat It apiKMiN cliMrly \o:ul a rraM»nal>U* iliiiil)! llial llu* statulr IS it is cousitlorc^l l‘cltrr piarlicc for the emni to asMinn' the st.it- ule Is constitutional, until the contrary is ilccidcil hy a court of appellate juristlic- tion.” This view has consistently heeit fnlimved. Slate ex ri l. h'icifihaek v. (Ire^orski (1*^501. 272 Wis. 570 at 574. 7(» X.W.Jd ,kSi; \\ hue House Milk Co. V. UeynoUls \2 Wis. 2(1 143, 106 N.W.2d 441; Associated lli»s- pital Service, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee 13 Wis.2d 447, 474. 10'> N.W.2d 271 : City of Milwaukee v. iloffinann (I%5), 2*^ Wis.2d 103. 1«)S. I3S N.\V.2d 22X In f/iv//- orski the district court of Milwaukee held a statute constitutional and wc affirmed the holding: of constitutionality hy the eireiut court when it denied a writ of prohihuion. We pointed out the above lau;:uav:e li. l i.«*t jtwtit) an inference the trial conn eor/.d not pass upon the constitutionality of a stat* ul(‘. In iriiitc House we reverved the eir cuit court’s holding of unconstitutioiialitv and (]uoted the Siehlek Cose without com ment. In .Issoeiitted Hospital the circuit court denied summary jud^rment on the ground the constitutionality (juestion re (juired hearing evidence. We icco>;iii/nl the circuit court’s power to decide the issue and staled we were hesitant “to lay down any rule j;ovcrniiij: the exercise of discie- tion hy trial cou-ts. when confronted with an issue of constitutionality of a siatiitt on demurrer or motion for summary iud|^meiit . . hut slated “it is hetler practice for it to assume th(' statute is constitntiojial un til the appellate court has passed upon it ex cept where unconsiitulionality is ai»paienl he\(»iid a reasonahle douht.” In Hofimunn we affirmed the circuit court which re versed the county court iii holding a city ordinance unconstitutional and pointed out the county court had decided a question of constitutionality when one party was not repr« srntf d hy couiis# 1, the other skIi ha*l stall il It was not n ady for trial, without the henetit of hiiets .ind without writ ten reason for the Inddin)^. Although the practice for •rial courts no. to hold laws iiiK onstitntional has not lir.n uniformlv followed, ne\t rtheless, it is our helief many lawyers have and are hrin^inn to the federal courts eases involving ques tions of coiisiitiitionalily of stati* laws l>c- cause of the limitation placed on state courts in the exercise of the power to de clare a law unconstitutional. 121,22 1 \\‘e think that when a constitu tional issue is now presfiited to the trial courts of this stale, it is the hettcr prac tice for thosr* courts i«i rtcoiini/e its im portance, have the issue thorourrlily brief ed. ami fii!l\ pr*-^fiaid. 'Ihe I'-sue should 1 0 dec: ltd an;. oMicr import,ii't •.'‘Sue with due coiisuhi .ttuiTi. 'ri;c i»r.i‘*t,cf m? as- siimiiir^ CMhstitiition.ilit}, until the cor.trary is d« ciiled hy an ajipi ll.ile i •airl, is no lonj;- er neci ss;irv or workahh*. ()f course, a pnsiimption of coii«-titmion.dity ixist^ un til declared otherwise h\ ;i compcUiU ♦ oiirt, which we think the trial courts of Wiscon sin are, hec.iiise .*i regularly enacn-d statute IS presuimd to he constitutional and the parly attacking the si.iiule iniisl line! the I iirden of piiMif of shm\ni^ nncfaisiiiution- .ilitv hesoml a re.isoii.t!4e doulU. 'I’lic Jiidi:Tiunl in e,i%r nuinher Pih, dis- missini: the |fis|s* action, is rnodifictl to set forth the decl.ir.itory a<ljudication that the shoK kind /«iiiin^^ ordimuice of respond ent Mannein (.’oiintv is constitutional; lli.ll the Justs* property constitutes wet- l.iiids and that p.irticukirly the prohihition 111 the oidiii.iiiie .m.iinsi the filling of wet lands is comtitutional: and the jndjjfnetit, .is so modifietl, IS al firmed. The JtidK- iiient III casr iiiinihrr I07, ticclarniK a for feiture. IS afIIInud. ^43? . r f --"''▼I 1