DCPREZ-0000-04596 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

u r n � _ , A ' • '�F i • tom.. t w + ry . 8 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. [OcT. Just v.Marinette County,56 Wis.2d 7. 4. Water and watercourses--Conservation and pollution control— Municipal shoreland zoning ordinance—"Wetlands"—"Con- ditional use" a valid exercise of police power. The trial court herein correctly ruled that the restrictions in the county ordinance upon wetlands within 1,000 feet of a lake which prevent the placing of excess fill upon such land without a permit are not confiscatory or unreasonable, but a valid exercise of police power, this because (a) the changing of wetlands and swamps to the damage of the general public by upsetting the natural environment and the natural rela- tionship is not a reasonable use of that land which is pro- tected from police power regulation, and (b) filling a swamp not otherwise commercially usable is not in and of itself an existing use, which is prevented, but rather is the preparation for some future use which is not indigenous to a swamp. pp. 17, 22. 5. Constitutional law—Courts--Consideration of constitutional issues by lower courts—Change in present practice. Departing from heretofore approved practice of trial courts in assuming constitutionality of a law until the contrary is decided by an appellate court, the supreme court enunciates the following change: When a constitutional issue is now presented to the trial courts of this state, it is better practice for those courts to recognize its importance, have the issue thoroughly briefed, fully presented, and decided as any other important issue with due consideration—this to obviate the bringing to the federal courts cases involving questions of constitutionality of state laws because of the prior limitation placed on state courts in the exercise of the power to declare a law unconstitutional. pp. 24-26. APPEAL from judgments of the circuit court for Mari- nette county: JAMES A. MARTINEAU, Circuit Judge. Modi- fied and,as modified, affirmed. These two cases were consolidated for trial and argued together on appeal. In Case No. 106, Ronald Just and Kathryn L. Just, his wife (Dusts), sought a declara- tory judgment stating: (1) The shoreland zoning ordi- nance of the respondent Marinette county (Marinette) was unconstitutional, (2) their property was not "wet- lands" as defined in the ordinance, and (3) the prohibi- tion against the filling of wetlands was unconstitutional.