Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> - rp 4 <br /> M djF`e <br /> R <br /> '4„J w <br /> "4y• •a <br /> F.cf <br /> 26 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. [OCT. <br /> Just v. Marinette County,56 Wis.2d 7. <br /> placed on state courts in the exercise of the power to <br /> declare a law unconstitutional. <br /> We think that when a constitutional issue is now <br /> presented to the trial courts of this state, it is the better <br /> practice for those courts to recognize its importance, have <br /> the issue thoroughly briefed, and fully presented. The <br /> issue should be decided as any other important issue with <br /> due consideration. The practice of assuming constitution- <br /> ality, until the contrary is decided by an appellate court, <br /> is no longer necessary or workable. Of course, a pre- <br /> sumption of constitutionality exists until declared other- <br /> wise by a competent court, which we think the trial <br /> courts of Wisconsin are, because a regularly enacted <br /> statute is presumed to be constitutional and the party <br /> attacking the statute must meet the burden of proof of <br /> showing unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. <br /> By the Court.—The judgment in Case No. 106, <br /> dismissing the Justs' action, is modified to set forth the <br /> declaratory adjudication that the shoreland zoning ordi- <br /> nance of respondent Marinette county is constitutional; <br /> that the Justs' property constitutes wetlands and that <br /> particularly the prohibition in the ordinance against the <br /> 1 filling of wetlands is constitutional; and the judgment, <br /> as so modified, is affirmed. The judgment in Case No. <br /> ~ 107, declaring a forfeiture,is affirmed. <br /> k <br /> 4 <br /> } <br /> 0 <br /> 1 <br /> ' I I <br /> 4 I ' <br /> i <br />