7 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Village of Hobart v. Brown Countygreen2 sentences2007We concluded that "a municipality cannot be estopped from seeking to enforce a zoning ordinance violation," although "a trial court can refuse to issue an injunction for a zoning violation on the grounds of equitable estoppel." Id., ¶ 25 & n.ll. 2005See Vill. of Hobart, 271 Wis. 2d 268, ¶ 16 . ¶ 16. | 1 | 2 |
Forest County v. Goodegreen2 sentences2004In Forest County v. Goode, 219 Wis. 2d 654, 681-82 , 579 N.W.2d 715 (1998), the supreme court held a court sitting in equity should weigh traditional equitable considerations, including laches, estoppel, or unclean hands, when deciding whether to issue an injunction for a zoning ordinance violation. 2004In Forest County v. Goode, 219 Wis. 2d 654, 681-82 , 579 N.W.2d 715 (1998), the supreme court held a court sitting in equity should weigh traditional equitable considerations, including laches, estoppel, or unclean hands, when deciding whether to issue an injunction for a zoning ordinance violation. | 1 | 2 |
Russell Dairy Stores, Inc. v. City of Chippewa Fallsgreen1 sentence2022The court in Russell Dairy explained that when “‘a building permit has been issued without fraud to one who has thereafter in good faith expended money in reliance thereon, such owner attains an interest in such permit which is in the nature of a vested right and under such circumstances such permit may not be arbitrarily revoked.’” Russell Dairy, 272 Wis. at 146 (quoted source omitted); see also Willow Creek Ranch, 235 Wis. 2d 409, ¶¶57-58 (contrasting the arbitrary revocation of a legally issued permit, as was at issue in Russell Dairy, with a municipality’s decision to block the operation o | 1 | 1 |
Willow Creek Ranch, L.L.C. v. Town of Shelbygreen1 sentence2022The court in Russell Dairy explained that when “‘a building permit has been issued without fraud to one who has thereafter in good faith expended money in reliance thereon, such owner attains an interest in such permit which is in the nature of a vested right and under such circumstances such permit may not be arbitrarily revoked.’” Russell Dairy, 272 Wis. at 146 (quoted source omitted); see also Willow Creek Ranch, 235 Wis. 2d 409, ¶¶57-58 (contrasting the arbitrary revocation of a legally issued permit, as was at issue in Russell Dairy, with a municipality’s decision to block the operation o | 1 | 1 |
Village of Hobart v. Brown Countygreen1 sentence2022See Village of Hobart, 281 Wis. 2d 628, ¶25 (“a municipality cannot be estopped from asserting a violation of its zoning ordinance in court” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
Town of Sterling v. Poulingreen1 sentence1997Id. at 148-49 (Declined to extend to case between private landowners in Richardson v. City of Rutland, 671 A.2d 1245 (Vt. 1995)). [1] "However, where it has been clear that the offending building or structure could not be utilized for any purpose permitted in the pertinent zoning district, relief has been extended to include an order for the removal of the building or structure." County of Columbia v. Bylewski, 94 Wis. 2d 153, 167 , 288 N.W.2d 129, 136 (1980) (quoting Town of Sterling v. Poulin, 316 N.E.2d 737, 739 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)). | 1 | 1 |
County of Columbia v. Bylewskigreen2 sentences1997Id. at 148-49 (Declined to extend to case between private landowners in Richardson v. City of Rutland, 671 A.2d 1245 (Vt. 1995)). [1] "However, where it has been clear that the offending building or structure could not be utilized for any purpose permitted in the pertinent zoning district, relief has been extended to include an order for the removal of the building or structure." County of Columbia v. Bylewski, 94 Wis. 2d 153, 167 , 288 N.W.2d 129, 136 (1980) (quoting Town of Sterling v. Poulin, 316 N.E.2d 737, 739 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)). 1997Id. at 148-49 (Declined to extend to case between private landowners in Richardson v. City of Rutland, 671 A.2d 1245 (Vt. 1995)). [1] "However, where it has been clear that the offending building or structure could not be utilized for any purpose permitted in the pertinent zoning district, relief has been extended to include an order for the removal of the building or structure." County of Columbia v. Bylewski, 94 Wis. 2d 153, 167 , 288 N.W.2d 129, 136 (1980) (quoting Town of Sterling v. Poulin, 316 N.E.2d 737, 739 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)). | 1 | 1 |
Town of Sherburne v. Carpentergreen2 sentences1997The majority also relies upon Town of Sherburne v. Carpenter, 582 A.2d 145, 147-48 (Vt. 1990), for the proposition that the trial court has only limited discretion to refuse to issue injunctive relief sought by a municipality for a zoning ordinance violation. 1997Id. at 148 . [5] Town of Sherburne held the trial court has only limited discretion to refuse to issue injunctive relief where a municipality seeks injunctive relief for a zoning ordinance violation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Milwaukee v. Leavitt
green
2 sentences2004Turning to the equitable estoppel argument, a municipality cannot be estopped from seeking to enforce a zoning ordinance violation. 11 See City of Milwaukee v. Leavitt, 31 Wis. 2d 72, 78-79 , 142 N.W.2d 169 (1966). 2004Turning to the equitable estoppel argument, a municipality cannot be estopped from seeking to enforce a zoning ordinance violation. 11 See City of Milwaukee v. Leavitt, 31 Wis. 2d 72, 78-79 , 142 N.W.2d 169 (1966). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Fonk's Mobile Home Park & Sales, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998We need not take up a separation of powers analysis here, because we read the statute to reflect a legislative intent that the circuit court continue to exercise its traditional equitable power in deciding, once a zoning ordinance violation is proven, whether to grant injunctive relief. [12] The unfair trade practices statute invoked in State v. Fonk's Mobile Home Park & Sales, Inc., 117 Wis. 2d 94 , 343 N.W.2d 820 (Ct. App. 1983), provided: The department may commence an action in circuit court in the name of the state to restrain by temporary or permanent injunction the violation of any orde 1998We need not take up a separation of powers analysis here, because we read the statute to reflect a legislative intent that the circuit court continue to exercise its traditional equitable power in deciding, once a zoning ordinance violation is proven, whether to grant injunctive relief. [12] The unfair trade practices statute invoked in State v. Fonk's Mobile Home Park & Sales, Inc., 117 Wis. 2d 94 , 343 N.W.2d 820 (Ct. App. 1983), provided: The department may commence an action in circuit court in the name of the state to restrain by temporary or permanent injunction the violation of any orde | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Richardson v. City of Rutland
green
2 sentences1997Id. at 148-49 (Declined to extend to case between private landowners in Richardson v. City of Rutland, 671 A.2d 1245 (Vt. 1995)). [1] "However, where it has been clear that the offending building or structure could not be utilized for any purpose permitted in the pertinent zoning district, relief has been extended to include an order for the removal of the building or structure." County of Columbia v. Bylewski, 94 Wis. 2d 153, 167 , 288 N.W.2d 129, 136 (1980) (quoting Town of Sterling v. Poulin, 316 N.E.2d 737, 739 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)). 1997Id. at 148-49 (Declined to extend to case between private landowners in Richardson v. City of Rutland, 671 A.2d 1245 (Vt. 1995)). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.