Laserfiche WebLink
4it n <br /> y . . . . . , s: <br /> f � <br /> 3 I <br /> 20 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. [OCT. <br /> Just v.Marinette County,56 Wis.2d 7. <br /> 194 N. W. 159, 162, the court held a statute which limited <br /> the height of buildings surrounding the state capitol to <br /> be unnecessary for the public health, safety, or welfare <br /> and, thus, to constitute an unreasonable exercise of the <br /> police power. In all these cases the unreasonableness of <br /> the exercise of the police power lay in excessive restric- <br /> tion of the natural use of the land or rights in relation <br /> thereto. <br /> Cases holding the exercise of police power to be reason- <br /> able likewise provide no assistance to Marinette county <br /> in their argument. In More-Way North Corp. v. State <br /> Highway Comm. (1969), 44 Wis. 2d 165, 170 N. W. 2d <br /> 749, the court held that no "taking" occurred as a result <br /> of the state's lowering the grade of a highway, which <br /> necessitated plaintiff's reconstruction of its parking lot <br /> and loss of 42 parking spaces. In Wisconsin Power & <br /> Light Co. v. Columbia County (1958), 3 Wis. 2d 1, 87 <br /> N. W. 2d 279, no "taking" was found where the county, <br /> in relocating a highway, deposited gravel close to plain- <br /> tiff's tower, causing it to tilt. In Nick v. State Highway <br /> Comm., supra, the court held where property itself is not <br /> physically taken by the state, a restriction of access to a <br /> highway,while it may decrease the value of the land, does <br /> not entitle the owner to compensation. In Buhler the <br /> court held the mere depreciation of value was not suffi- <br /> cient ground to enjoin the county from enforcing the ordi- <br /> nance. In Hasslinger v. Hartland (1940), 234 Wis. 201, <br /> 206, 290 N. W. 647, the court noted that "[a]ssuming an <br /> actionable nuisance by the creation of odors which make <br /> occupation of plaintiffs' farm inconvenient . . . and im- <br /> , pair its value, it cannot be said that defendant has dis- <br /> possessed plaintiffs or taken their property." <br /> The Justs rely on several cases from other jurisdictions <br /> which have held zoning regulations involving flood plain <br /> districts, flood basins and wetlands to be so confiscatory <br /> as to amount to a taking because the owners of the land <br />