Hartland Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. City of Delafield
Decision Date | 17 June 2020 |
Docket Number | Appeal No. 2019AP740 |
Citation | 2020 WI App 44,947 N.W.2d 214,393 Wis.2d 496 |
Parties | HARTLAND SPORTSMEN'S CLUB, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF DELAFIELD, City of Delafield Common Council and City of Delafield Plan Commission, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the defendants-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of James W. Hammes of Cramer, Multhauf & Hammes, LLP, Waukesha.
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Jeremy P. Levinson, Stacie H. Rosenzweig, and Scott N. Burns of Halling & Cayo, S.C., Milwaukee.
Before Neubauer, C.J., Reilly, P.J., and Davis, J.
¶1 The City of Delafield, the City of Delafield Common Council, and the City of Delafield Plan Commission (collectively, the City) appeal from an order granting the motion of Hartland Sportsmen's Club, Inc. (HSC) for a writ of mandamus ordering the City to issue HSC's conditional use permit (CUP) based on HSC's 2011 application and under applicable law to operate a sport shooting range. The City contends the circuit court erred in determining that prior court decisions set forth a plain legal duty to issue the CUP. We disagree and affirm.
¶2 The sport shooting range has a long history dating back to 1948, largely described in a prior appeal, Hartland Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. City of Delafield (HSC I ), No. 2016AP666, 2017 WL 3741466 (WI App Aug. 30, 2017), review denied , 2018 WI 20, 380 Wis. 2d 106, 909 N.W.2d 175. At issue is the import of our decision in that appeal affirming the circuit court's certiorari order under applicable certiorari law.
¶3 The circuit court found that the City's 2013 denial of HSC's 2011 application for a CUP was arbitrary and capricious, reflecting its will and not its judgment, and thus was invalid. As we recounted in HSC I , the circuit court found:
HSC I , No. 2016AP666, ¶¶29-30. The circuit court granted HSC's motion for certiorari relief. That motion included a request that it be able to "implement[ ] its proposal and resum[e] operations of its ranges." (Alterations in original.)
¶4 In the prior appeal, we noted that the certiorari review involved "whether [the municipality's] action was arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable and represented its will and not its judgment." HSC I , No. 2016AP666, ¶50 (alteration in original) (quoting Ottman v. Town of Primrose , 2011 WI 18, ¶35, 332 Wis. 2d 3, 796 N.W.2d 411 ).1
¶5 We affirmed the circuit court's decision on this ground, explaining:
HSC I , No. 2016AP666, ¶¶52-54 ( ). We held that the circuit court "correctly invalidated the City's denial of HSC's CUP application," because the denial was arbitrary and capricious. Id. , ¶55.2 We also stated: "[T]he application is clearly the basis for the City to provide a CUP pursuant to the applicable ordinances." Id. , ¶54 n.11. As HSC correctly argues, both courts found that the record did not support denial, as it was undisputed that HSC had established that its application met each of the City's requirements and stated concerns.3
¶6 HSC did not request, and the circuit court did not, remand to the municipality for further proceedings, and neither did we. The supreme court denied review.
¶7 Subsequently, rather than issuing the CUP based on the 2011 application, the City reconsidered, holding new hearings, taking new evidence, issuing new findings, and denying the CUP.
¶8 HSC then brought a new action for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the prior court rulings required the City to issue the CUP based on HSC's application. The circuit court agreed with HSC and directed the City to issue a CUP based on the 2011 application, "pursuant to applicable statutes, ordinances and law, including the circuit court and court appeals [prior] rulings." The City appeals.4
¶9 This appeal involves our review of the circuit court's grant of a writ of mandamus. We will uphold a circuit court's grant or denial of a writ of mandamus unless the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion. Lake Bluff Hous. Partners v. City of S. Milwaukee , 197 Wis. 2d 157, 170, 540 N.W.2d 189 (1995). A circuit court's "discretion in issuing a writ of mandamus is erroneously exercised if based on an erroneous understanding of the law." Id. (citing State ex rel. Althouse v. City of Madison , 79 Wis. 2d 97, 106, 255 N.W.2d 449 (1977) ). We apply de novo review to the interpretation of a prior order of judgment, including here. See Schultz v. Schultz , 194 Wis. 2d 799, 805-06, 535 N.W.2d 116 (Ct. App. 1995) ; LeMere v. LeMere , 2003 WI 67, ¶14, 262 Wis. 2d 426, 663 N.W.2d 789 ( ).
¶10 The writ "may be used to compel public officers ‘to perform duties arising out of their office and presently due to be performed.’ " Pasko v. City of Milwaukee , 2002 WI 33, ¶24, 252 Wis. 2d 1, 643 N.W.2d 72 (citations omitted). Mandamus relief is warranted when these prerequisites are present: "(1) a clear legal right; (2) a positive and plain duty; (3) substantial damages; and (4) no other adequate remedy at law." Law Enf't Standards Bd. v. Village of Lyndon Station , 101 Wis. 2d 472, 494, 305 N.W.2d 89 (1981).
¶11 The City contends the prior decisions permit further hearings and reconsideration of the 2011 CUP application. HSC contends that, because supplementing the record on remand from the certiorari court would not be permitted here, the circuit court's reversal, which we affirmed, requires the City to issue the CUP pursuant to the 2011 application. The circuit court agreed with HSC, as do we.
¶12 The purpose of certiorari judicial review of municipal and administrative decisions is to ensure procedural due process. Guerrero v. City of Kenosha Hous. Auth. , 2011 WI App 138, ¶8, 337 Wis. 2d 484, 805 N.W.2d 127. After review, a certiorari court has three options—affirm, reverse, or remand for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision. Id. ; see also WIS. STAT. § 68.13(1) ().
¶13 Both parties point to Guerrero , and we agree that it sets forth the case law and four guiding principles at issue here.
¶14 Remand to the municipality or administrative tribunal for further hearings is appropriate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
... ... Pasko v. City of Milwaukee , 2002 WI 33, 23, 252 Wis. 2d 1, ... ...
-
Fassett v. City of Brookfield
...Dolan test, and thus, the circuit court appropriately ordered the City to approve Fassett's application. See Hartland Sportsmen's Club, Inc. v. City of Delafield , 2020 WI App 44, ¶20, 393 Wis. 2d 496, 947 N.W.2d 214 (reversal appropriate "where the factual evidence failed to support the mu......