Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br /> F <br /> 31] AUGUST TERM, 1972. 25 I i <br /> Just v.Marinette County,56 Wis.2d 7. <br /> 12 Wis. 2d 143, 106 N. W. 2d 441; Associated Hospital <br /> Service v. Milwaukee (1961), 13 Wis. 2d 447, 474, 109 <br /> N. W. 2d 271; City of Milwaukee v. Hoffmann (1965), 29 ; <br /> Wis. 2d 193, 198, 138 N. W. 2d 223. In Gregorski the '> t.. ` <br /> ;; <br /> district court of Milwaukee held a statute constitutional , <br /> and we affirmed the holding of constitutionality by the I w} <br /> circuit court when it denied a writ of prohibition. We ' <br /> pointed out the above language did not justify an in- `` <br /> ference the trial court could not pass upon the consti- <br /> tutionality of a statute. In White House we reversed the <br /> circuit court's holding of unconstitutionality and quoted , '` <br /> the Stehlek Case without comment. In Associated Hos- <br /> pital the circuit court denied summary judgment on the <br /> ground the constitutionality question required hearing <br /> evidence. We recognized the circuit court's power to de- , <br /> cide the issue and stated we were hesitant "to lay down s w k' <br /> any rule governing the exercise of discretion by trial . . <br /> t. <br /> courts, when confronted with an issue of constitutionality <br /> of a statute on demurrer or motion for summary judgment , t' � <br /> ." but stated "it is better practice for it to assume , E* 4_i ' <br /> the statute is constitutional until the appellate court has P, <br /> passed upon it except where unconstitutionality is ap- I ° <br /> parent beyond a reasonable doubt." (p.474) In Hoffmann <br /> we affirmed the circuit court which reversed the county i i .z:' <br /> court in holding a city ordinance unconstitutional and !' , <br /> pointed out the county court had decided a question of <br /> constitutionality when one party was not represented I , <br /> by counsel, the other side had stated it was not ready for ;� <br /> trial, without the benefit of briefs and without giving a <br /> written reason for the holding. <br /> Although the practice for trial courts not to hold laws , , <br /> unconstitutional has not been uniformly followed, never- t <br /> theless, it is our belief many lawyers have been and are `,g <br /> bringing to the federal courts cases involving g g g questions i `a <br /> i <br /> of constitutionality of state laws because of the limitation <br /> Hsr <br /> t <br /> i, <br /> • i- <br /> - ':-.,A <br /> t <br /> 4 <br />