State ex rel. Russell v. Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of Prairie Du Sac
Decision Date | 13 May 1947 |
Citation | 250 Wis. 394,27 N.W.2d 378 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. RUSSELL et al. v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF VILLAGE OF PRAIRIE DU SAC et al. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Sauk County; Alvin C. Reis, Judge.
Reversed.
Petition for certiorari filed on April 18, 1945, to test the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals of the Village of Prairie du Sac in granting a building permit to Roy G. Curtis notwithstanding a rezoning ordinance. From the judgment, entered June 18, 1946, affirming the granting of the permit and awarding costs against the plaintiffs, plaintiffs appeal.
Roy G. Curtis purchased certain real estate in the Village of Prairie du Sac upon which he intended to build a repair shop. On July 11, 1944, he filed a written application for a building permit, and soon thereafter he began assembling building materials on his property. At that time the land in question was in a business or service district. The Village Clerk and Building Inspector denied Curtis' application for the building permit. On September 28, 1944, Curtis filed a notice of appeal from this decision to the Board of Appeals. This notice, later found, was mislaid at the time and a second one filed on March 6, 1945. On October 10, 1944, which was after Curtis' purchase of the property, the Village Board amended the zoning ordinance so that the district in which Curtis' land was located was changed from a service district to a residence district. Notwithstanding this change, the Board of Appeals on March 9, 1945, granted Curtis a building permit.
The pertinent provisions of the village zoning ordinance, 12.17, are as follows:
Under the writ of certiorari sued out by Clayton Russell and Edna Russell, his wife, and Theo. c. Berg and Lena Berg, his wife, the circuit court affirmed the action of the Board of Appeals in granting the permit. The court said, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yanta v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
...to see if the remedy or penalty for a violation is provided. If it is, that remedy is exclusive. State ex rel. Russell v. Board of Appeals (1947), 250 Wis. 394, 397, 27 N.W.2d 378; LeFevre v. Goodland (1945), 247 Wis. 512, 516--517, 19 N.W.2d 884. Where the law gives a new remedy to meet a ......
-
Ross v. Ebert, 8
...to see if the remedy or penalty for a violation is provided. If it is, that remedy is exclusive. State ex rel. Russell v. Board of Appeals, 1947, 250 Wis. 394, 397, 27 N.W.2d 378; LeFevre v. Goodland, 1943, 247 Wis. 512, 516-517, 19 N.W.2d 884, 161 A.L.R. 342. Where the law gives a new reme......
-
Cudahy v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue
...Affairs & Development (1974), 62 Wis.2d 622, 215 N.W.2d 408; Brachtl v. Department of Revenue, supra, and State ex rel. Russell v. Board of Appeals (1947), 250 Wis. 394, 27 N.W.2d 378. In Evans v. Department of Local Affairs & Development, supra, it was said 'The circuit court for Dane coun......
-
Marshall Drainage Dist. v. Festge
...prescribed by the statute must be strictly pursued, to the exclusion of other methods of redress." State ex rel. Russell v. Board of Appeals, 1947, 250 Wis. 394, 397, 27 N.W.2d 378, 379. 'It being clearly an exclusive remedy and also evidencing a complete legislative scheme contemplating bu......