Case Title: Town of Rib Mountain v. Marathon County

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017AP002021

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2019-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
2019 WI 50 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP2021 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Town of Rib Mountain, 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
     v. 
Marathon County, 
          Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner, 
Town of McMillan, Town of Mosinee, Town of 
Stettin, Town  
of Texas, Town of Wausau and Town of Weston, 
          Defendants-Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at 383 Wis. 2d 493,916 N.W.2d 164 
PDC No:2018 WI App 42 - Published 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 16, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
February 14, 2019 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Marathon 
 
JUDGE: 
Gregory B. Huber 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ABRHAMSON, J. and A.W. BRADLEY, J. did not 
participate.     
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the defendant-respondent-petitioner, there were briefs 
filed by Scott M. Corbett, corporation counsel. There was an 
oral argument by Scott M. Corbett. 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant, there was a brief filed by 
Dean R. Dietrich, Esq., Alyson D. Dieckman, Esq., and Dietrich 
Vanderwaal S.C., Wausau. There was an oral argument by Dean R. 
Dietrich. 
 
 
 
2
An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Wisconsin 
Counties Association by Andrew T. Phillips, Bennett J. Conard, 
and Von Briesen & Roper, S.C., Milwaukee. 
 
 
2019 WI 50
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP2021 
(L.C. No. 
2017CV207) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Town of Rib Mountain, 
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Marathon County, 
 
          Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner, 
 
Town of McMillan, Town of Mosinee, Town of 
Stettin, Town of Texas, Town of Wausau and Town 
of Weston, 
 
          Defendants-Respondents. 
 
FILED 
 
May 16, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed.   
 
¶1 
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J.   In 1957, the Wisconsin 
legislature conferred authority on counties to "establish a 
rural naming or numbering system in towns for the purpose of 
aiding in fire protection, emergency services, and civil 
defense."  Wis. Stat. § 59.54(4) (2017-18).1  Marathon County 
                                                 
1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2017-18 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
2 
 
decided to establish such a system in 2016 but the Town of Rib 
Mountain challenged its authority to do so, contending the 
statute confines counties to implementing naming and numbering 
systems only within "rural" areas of towns.  Marathon County 
maintains that the only territorial restriction on its authority 
to establish a "rural naming or numbering system" is "in towns."  
The circuit court denied the Town declaratory relief, the Town 
appealed its decision, and the court of appeals reversed.  We 
agree with Marathon County and hold, consistent with the text of 
the statute, that Marathon County may establish a rural naming 
or numbering system in towns, and the statute does not restrict 
this exercise of authority to only rural areas within them.  
"Rural" merely describes the naming or numbering system and the 
roads to which the system applies; it has no independent 
operative effect.  We reverse the decision of the court of 
appeals. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
¶2 
In 2016, Marathon County passed Ordinance #O-7-16 to 
"establish[] and maintain[] a county addressing system for 
Marathon County."  See Marathon Cty. Or. § 9.20(2) (2018).  
Under the ordinance, Marathon County would "assign each location 
[in Marathon County] a unique address which will aid emergency 
[personnel] in providing fire protection, emergency medical 
services, and law enforcement services; and meet other general 
locational needs such as delivery services of the public."  See 
id.  The ordinance applied "to each road, home, business, farm, 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
3 
 
structure, or other establishments in the unincorporated areas 
of the County."  See Marathon Cty. Or. § 9.20(4) (2018). 
¶3 
The Town of Rib Mountain was one of 40 towns required 
by Marathon County to participate in the addressing system.  The 
Town filed an action for declaratory relief against Marathon 
County.2  The Town alleged that "Marathon County's authority to 
implement a naming and numbering system in towns is limited to 
rural naming and numbering systems, upon which only rural roads 
and 
intersections, 
homes, 
businesses, 
farms, 
and 
other 
establishments may be assigned a name or number, and only when 
the purpose of implementing a rural naming and number system in 
towns is to aid in fire protection, emergency services, and 
civil defense."  The Town asserted that Marathon County's 
"[o]rdinance unlawfully exceeds the statutory authority granted 
to Marathon County by the Wisconsin Legislature and intrudes 
upon the Town's statutory authority to choose or change the 
names of urban or non-rural roads."   
¶4 
The 
circuit 
court 
denied 
the 
Town's 
claim 
for 
declaratory relief.3  The circuit court disagreed with the Town's 
assertion that "rural" as used in Wis. Stat. § 59.54 restricts 
where Marathon County may establish an addressing system, and it 
                                                 
2 The Complaint added the Towns of McMillan, Mosinee, 
Stettin, Texas, Weston, and Wausau as necessary parties.  Those 
towns filed letters with the Clerk of the Supreme Court stating 
that they will not be filing a brief and will abide by this 
court's decision. 
3 The Honorable Gregory Huber presided. 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
4 
 
held that the term "'rural' modifies 'naming or numbering 
system'——it has to do with the type of system, not with the 
location where it can be imposed."  The circuit court ruled that 
"rural" was best read to mean "unincorporated."  Because, the 
circuit court reasoned, the statute's "only limitations are that 
it be implemented 'in towns' and that it be implemented 'for the 
purpose of aiding in fire protection, emergency services, and 
civil defense,'" the circuit court denied the motion for 
declaratory relief.  
¶5 
The Town appealed, and the court of appeals reversed 
the circuit court.  Town of Rib Mountain v. Marathon Cty., 2018 
WI App 42, 383 Wis. 2d 493, 916 N.W.2d 164.  The court of 
appeals determined Marathon County could implement a naming or 
numbering system only in "unincorporated areas that also qualify 
as 'rural.'"  Id., ¶1.  The court of appeals rejected Marathon 
County's argument that the word "rural" describes the type of 
naming or numbering system and does not impose a territorial 
limitation on Marathon County's authority.  Id., ¶¶12-13.  The 
court 
of 
appeals 
concluded 
that 
the 
"use 
of 
the 
word 
'rural' . . . unambiguously demonstrates that [the legislature] 
intended to restrict a county's naming and numbering authority 
to 'rural' areas."  Id.  The court of appeals rejected the 
circuit 
court's 
definition 
of 
"rural" 
to 
mean 
"'unincorporated' . . . because it renders the word 'rural' in 
Wis. Stat. § 59.54(4) and (4m) surplusage."  Town of Rib 
Mountain, 383 Wis. 2d 493, ¶¶15-16.   
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
5 
 
¶6 
Having concluded that the statute restricts Marathon 
County's authority to implement a naming and numbering system to 
rural 
areas 
in 
towns, 
the 
court 
of 
appeals 
consulted 
dictionaries to give meaning to "rural." Id., ¶18.  Combining 
several definitions, the court of appeals adopted the following 
definition of "rural" for Wis. Stat. § 59.54(4) and (4m): 
[T]hese definitions establish that:  (1) the term 
"rural" 
is 
used 
to 
describe 
things 
that 
are 
characteristic of, or related to, the "country"; and 
(2) the "country" encompasses places that are distinct 
from "urban" areas——i.e., areas with comparatively 
higher concentrations of people or buildings.  Based 
on these definitions, we conclude the term "rural" in 
Wis. Stat. § [59.54](4) and (4m) denotes areas that 
are not urban.  In other words, the term "rural" 
refers to areas that are comparatively less densely 
populated by people or buildings, or areas that are 
characteristic of, or related to, the country. 
Town of Rib Mountain, 383 Wis. 2d 493, ¶20 (footnote omitted).   
¶7 
Employing this definition of "rural," the court of 
appeals held that "[t]he County thus exceeded its authority by 
mandating the implementation of a uniform addressing system in 
all unincorporated areas of the County, without regard to 
whether those areas also qualified as 'rural.'"  Id., ¶28.  
However, despite adopting a definition of "rural" and declaring 
Marathon County's ordinance too broad, the court of appeals 
remanded the case, placing the burden on Marathon County to 
"demonstrate which portions of Rib Mountain, if any, qualify as 
'rural,' according to the plain meaning of the term as set forth 
above."  Id., ¶29.  The court of appeals instructed:   
As a general matter, we do not require the County to 
use any particular criteria in order to determine 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
6 
 
which 
unincorporated 
land 
within 
its 
territory 
qualifies as "rural," for purposes of Wis. Stat. 
§ 59.54(4) and (4m), and which does not.  The 
legislature chose not to include any specific criteria 
in those subsections for distinguishing between rural 
and non-rural areas.  Its failure to do so makes 
sense, 
because 
the 
criteria 
used 
to 
make 
that 
distinction will likely vary on a county-by-county 
basis, as land that might reasonably be categorized as 
rural in the context of a more populous county could 
conceivably be categorized as urban in the context of 
a less populous county. 
Town of Rib Mountain, 383 Wis. 2d 493, ¶30.  The court of 
appeals did "not endeavor to establish specific factors for 
determining what property qualifies as rural" and tasked 
Marathon County with "establish[ing] clear, reasonable criteria 
for identifying 'rural' areas within its territory."  Id., ¶31.  
A reviewing court in the future was to "review any challenges to 
a county's criteria or their implementation by considering both 
the unique factual circumstances presented and the purposes of 
the relevant statutory subsections, so as to determine the 
reasonableness of the county's conclusions."  Id.  
¶8 
Marathon County petitioned this court for review, and 
we granted the petition. 
II.  DISCUSSION 
A.  Standard of Review 
¶9 
This 
case 
requires 
us 
to 
interpret 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 59.54(4) and (4m).  Statutory interpretation is a question of 
law we review de novo.  CED Props., LLC v. City of Oshkosh, 2018 
WI 24, ¶20, 380 Wis. 2d 399, 909 N.W.2d 136.  "[S]tatutory 
interpretation 'begins with the language of the statute'" and 
"[i]f the meaning of the statute is plain, we ordinarily stop 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
7 
 
the inquiry."  State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane 
Cty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (quoted 
source omitted).  We give statutory language "its common, 
ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that technical or 
specially-defined words or phrases are given their technical or 
special definitional meaning."  Id.  Context and structure are 
also "important to meaning," and we interpret statutory language 
"in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as 
part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or 
closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or 
unreasonable results."  Id., ¶46.  "Where statutory language is 
unambiguous, there is no need to consult extrinsic sources of 
interpretation, such as legislative history."  Id. 
B.  Analysis 
1.  Wisconsin Stat. § 59.54(4) and (4m) apply in towns. 
¶10 The issue is whether Wis. Stat. § 59.54(4) and (4m) 
restrict Marathon County's authority to establish a naming or 
numbering system to "rural" areas.  Generally, towns possess the 
authority to assign a name to, or rename, each road within their 
borders.  See Liberty Grove Town Bd. v. Door Cty. Bd. of 
Supervisors, 2005 WI App 166, ¶¶9-10, 284 Wis. 2d 814, 702 
N.W.2d 33; see also Wis. Stat. § 60.23(17) (the town board may 
"[n]ame, or change the name of, any street in the town under" 
Wis. Stat. § 82.03(7)); and § 82.03(7) ("The town board shall, 
by ordinance, assign a name to each of the roads that are under 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
8 
 
the town's jurisdiction.").  Originally enacted in 1957,4 Wis. 
Stat. § 59.54, "gives counties discretionary authority to 
establish a rural naming or numbering system when the purpose of 
the system is to aid in fire protection, emergency services and 
civil defense," thereby overriding towns' traditional authority 
to name roads.  Liberty Grove Town Bd., 284 Wis. 2d 814, ¶¶11, 
15.  The Town argues that Marathon County exceeded its statutory 
authority by enacting an ordinance calling for the renaming of 
roads throughout the Town because at least certain areas within 
the Town are not rural, as the Town perceives them.5 
¶11 Wisconsin 
Stat. 
§ 59.54(4) 
and 
(4m) 
provide 
as 
follows: 
(4) Rural naming or numbering system.  The board may 
establish a rural naming or numbering system in towns 
for 
the 
purpose 
of 
aiding 
in 
fire 
protection, 
emergency services, and civil defense, and appropriate 
and expend money therefor, under which: 
(a) Each rural road, home, business, farm or other 
establishment, may be assigned a name or number. 
(b) The names or numbers may be displayed on uniform 
signs posted on rural roads and intersections, and at 
each home, business, farm or other establishment. 
(4m) 
Rural 
naming 
or 
numbering 
system; 
town 
cooperation.  The rural naming or numbering system 
                                                 
4 The original version of the statute was enacted in 1957 as 
Wis. Stat. § 59.07.  See 1957 Wis. Laws, ch. 23, § 1.   
5 The Town argues that it is urban, but it maintains that 
"the rural or urban nature of Rib Mountain is more appropriately 
decided by the Circuit Court," and it agrees with the court of 
appeals decision to remand for a factual determination on this 
issue.  
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
9 
 
under sub. (4) may be carried out in cooperation with 
any town or towns in the county. 
¶12 Under the text of Wis. Stat. § 59.54, Marathon County 
"may establish a rural naming or numbering system in towns."  
§ 59.54(4) (emphasis added).  Accordingly, the territorial limit 
on Marathon County's authority to establish a "rural naming or 
numbering system" is "in towns."  Subsection (4) does not say 
"in rural towns" or "in rural portions of towns."  And "rural" 
does not modify this locational limitation.  Subsections (4) and 
(4m) both describe a "rural naming or numbering system," 
repeating the title given to each subsection, at least in part.6  
The word "rural" in these subsections describes the "naming or 
numbering system"; it does not modify the territorial scope of 
"in towns."  As a textual matter, the use of "rural" in 
subsections 
(4) 
and 
(4m) 
does 
not 
impose 
an 
additional 
territorial constraint on the establishment of naming or 
numbering systems, limiting them to only rural towns or rural 
portions of towns.  In subsections (4) and (4m), "rural" instead 
is a general description of the naming or numbering system, 
while "in towns" is the territorial scope of Marathon County's 
authority.   
¶13 Paragraphs (4)(a) and (4)(b) likewise do not modify 
subsection (4)'s territorial perimeter of "in towns."  Paragraph 
                                                 
6 "The 
titles 
to 
subchapters, 
sections, 
subsections, 
paragraphs and subdivisions of the statutes and history notes 
are not part of the statutes."  Wis. Stat. § 990.001(6); see 
also Manitowoc Co. v. Lanning, 2018 WI 6, ¶72 n.4, 379 
Wis. 2d 189, 906 N.W.2d 130 (R. Grassl Bradley, J., concurring). 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
10 
 
(a) states that "[e]ach rural road, home, business, farm or 
other establishment, may be assigned a name or number," and 
paragraph (b) provides that the "numbers may be displayed on 
uniform signs posted on rural roads and intersections, and at 
each home, business, farm or other establishment."  Wis. Stat. 
§ 59.54(4)(a)-(b) (emphasis added).  The Town "concedes the 
adjective 'rural' may not apply to each noun" in these lists.  
We agree.  "Rural" modifies "road" in paragraph (a) and "roads 
and intersections" in paragraph (b).  Here too the word "rural" 
describes the roads and intersections but does not modify 
subsection (4)'s territorial restriction of establishing the 
system "in towns."  The text of § 59.54(4) and (4m) plainly 
delineates where a county may establish a rural naming or 
numbering system——"in towns"——while the word "rural" generally 
describes the "naming or numbering system" and the "roads and 
intersections" within that system. 
2.  "Rural" has descriptive but not operative 
meaning in Wis. Stat. § 59.54. 
¶14 Having concluded that "rural" does not modify the 
locational parameter of "in towns," we now address what the word 
"rural" means in the context of this statute.  The Town insists 
that we "must consider each term in the statute to avoid 
surplusage" and argues that "rural" further restricts Marathon 
County's authority to establish a naming or numbering system 
within only the rural portions of towns rather than throughout 
towns in their entirety.  The Town asks us to adopt the court of 
appeals' definition of "rural" which was "not urban," "areas 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
11 
 
that are comparatively less densely populated by people or 
buildings, or areas that are characteristic of, or related to, 
the country."  Town of Rib Mountain, 383 Wis. 2d 493, ¶20.  
Marathon County urges us to reject the court of appeals' 
definition 
and 
instead 
hold 
that 
"rural" 
refers 
to 
unincorporated 
areas, 
meaning 
towns 
that 
have 
not 
been 
incorporated 
into 
villages 
or 
cities. 
 
We 
reject 
both 
definitions because "rural" is most reasonably read as a general 
descriptor.  Because it has no legally operative meaning, it is 
surplusage.   
¶15 Even though our interpretation results in declaring 
"rural" surplusage, the canon against surplusage is not an 
imperative that must be followed inexorably regardless of where 
that leads.  See Milwaukee Dist. Council 48 v. Milwaukee Cty., 
2019 WI 24, ¶17 n.10, 385 Wis. 2d 748, 924 N.W.2d 153; State v. 
Mason, 2018 WI App 57, ¶26, 384 Wis. 2d 111, 918 N.W.2d 78 ("The 
directive that we endeavor to give meaning to all parts of 
statutes so as to avoid surplusage is not a directive that we 
give different terms different meanings, regardless where that 
leads.").  Rather, the surplusage canon merely instructs that 
statutory language should be read "where possible to give 
reasonable effect to every word."  Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶46 
(emphasis added).  We recognize that "[s]ometimes drafters do 
repeat themselves and do include words that add nothing of 
substance."  Milwaukee Dist. Council 48, 385 Wis. 2d 748, ¶24 
(quoting 
Scalia 
& 
Bryan 
A. 
Garner, 
Reading 
Law: 
 
The 
Interpretation of Legal Texts 176 (2012)); see also  Arlington 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
12 
 
Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, 299 n.1 
(2006) ("While it is generally presumed that statutes do not 
contain surplusage, instances of surplusage are not unknown."); 
United States v. Bronstein, 849 F.3d 1101, 1110 (D.C. Cir. 2017) 
(declining to apply the canon against surplusage, and observing 
that at times "drafters do repeat themselves and do include 
words that add nothing of substance" (quoting Scalia at 176-
77)).  For this reason, the canon against surplusage is not 
absolute.  Milwaukee Dist. Council 48, 385 Wis. 2d 748, ¶17 
n.10; Mason, 384 Wis. 2d 111, ¶26 ("the 'preference for avoiding 
surplusage constructions is not absolute'" (quoted source 
omitted)).   
¶16 Because surplusage does exist in legislative drafting, 
"[w]e should be wary . . . of 'creat[ing] unforeseen meanings or 
legal effects from' what is nothing more than a 'stylistic 
mannerism.'"  Milwaukee Dist. Council 48, 385 Wis. 2d 748, ¶25 
(quoting Scalia, supra ¶15, at 177; alteration in original).  
Indeed, 
courts 
have 
observed 
that 
"[s]ometimes 
the 
most 
reasonable reading of a statute, one that gives it the 
legislatively intended effect, is one that renders some language 
in the statute surplusage."  See Milwaukee Dist. Council 48, 385 
Wis. 2d 748, 
¶24 
(quoting 
Mason, 
384 
Wis. 2d 111, 
¶26).  
Applying the rule against surplusage may be inappropriate where 
it would render an otherwise unambiguous statute ambiguous.  See 
e.g., Lamie v. United States Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 536 (2004) 
(adopting an interpretation that rendered a term "surplusage" to 
avoid ambiguity because "[w]e should prefer the plain meaning" 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
13 
 
and doing so would "avoid the pitfalls that plague too quick a 
turn to the more controversial realm of legislative history"); 
see also Barton v. United States Attorney Gen., 904 F.3d 1294, 
1301 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that when "faced with a choice 
between a plain-text reading that renders a word or clause 
superfluous 
and 
an 
interpretation 
that 
gives 
every 
word 
independent meaning but, in the doing, muddies up the statute——
courts 'should prefer the plain meaning since that approach 
respects the words of Congress.'" (quoting Lamie, 540 U.S. at 
536)); TMW Enters., Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 619 F.3d 574, 578 
(6th 
Cir. 
2010) 
(interpreting 
an 
insurance 
contract 
and 
explaining "'[w]here there are two ways to read the text'——and 
the one that avoids surplusage makes the text ambiguous——
'applying 
the 
rule 
against 
surplusage 
is, 
absent 
other 
indications, inappropriate.'" (quoting Lamie, 540 U.S. at 536)).   
¶17 The imprecision of "rural" and the absence of a 
statutory definition supports our conclusion that "rural" as 
used in Wis. Stat. § 59.54(4) and (4m) is a general descriptive 
term, not a territorial constraint.  The ordinary definition of 
"rural" is both broad and nebulous; attempting to apply it would 
generate unnecessary ambiguity.  "Rural" broadly refers to 
things that are related to, or are characteristic of, the 
country in contrast to more populated areas.  The common 
dictionary definitions relied upon by the court of appeals 
illustrate the point: 
The dictionaries we have consulted generally define 
the adjective "rural" as describing something that is 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
14 
 
related to, or characteristic of, the country.  For 
instance, one dictionary defines "rural" as "in, 
relating to, or characteristic of the countryside 
rather than the town."  Rural, New Oxford American 
Dictionary 
(2001). 
 
Another 
dictionary 
similarly 
defines "rural" as "of or relating to the country, 
country people or life, or agriculture." Rural, 
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977).  A third 
defines "rural" as "of, relating to, associated with, 
or typical of the country."  Rural, Webster's Third 
New International Dictionary (1993).  
Town of Rib Mountain, 383 Wis. 2d 493, ¶18.  Our review of other 
dictionary definitions yields essentially identical results.7   
¶18 If "rural" means something related to the "country," 
these definitions beg the question of what "country" means.  The 
dictionaries relied upon by the court of appeals similarly fail 
to establish a more concrete definition: 
"Country," in turn, is defined by one dictionary as 
"districts and small settlements outside large towns, 
cities, or the capital."  Country, New Oxford American 
Dictionary (2001).  Another dictionary states that 
"country" means both "an indefinite usu[ally] extended 
expanse of land" and "rural as distinguished from 
urban areas."  Country, Webster's New Collegiate 
Dictionary (1977).  A third dictionary similarly 
defines "country" as both "an expanse of land of 
undefined 
but 
usu[ally] 
considerable 
extent" 
and 
"rural regions as distinguished from city, town, or 
                                                 
7 Black's Law Dictionary defines "rural" as "[c]oncerning 
the country, as opposed to urban (concerning the city)."  Rural, 
Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990).  The American Heritage 
Dictionary 
defines 
"rural" 
as 
"[o]f, 
relating 
to, 
or 
characteristic of the country," "relating to people who live in 
the country," or "relating to farming."  Rural, American 
Heritage Dictionary (5th ed. 2011).  Finally, the Shorter Oxford 
English Dictionary defines "rural" in pertinent part as "[o]f, 
pertaining to, or characteristic of the country or country life; 
existing or performed in the country; agricultural, pastoral."  
Rural, Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th ed. 2007). 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
15 
 
other thickly inhabited and built-up areas."  Country, 
Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1993).  
Town of Rib Mountain, 383 Wis. 2d 493, ¶19 (emphasis added; 
alterations in original).  The dictionaries we reviewed provide 
similar definitions.8 
¶19 These definitions illustrate that the meaning of 
"rural" is subjective and indeterminate.  Common dictionary 
definitions are somewhat circular because "rural" points us to 
"country," and "country" is often defined as comprising "rural" 
areas, which brings us back full circle to "rural" but with no 
elucidation of its meaning.  "Rural," according to prevailing 
dictionary definitions, generally refers to things that are 
related to, or are characteristic of, the country, in contrast 
to more populated areas, rendering "rural" a relative term, 
subject to the eye of the beholder.  What is considered rural in 
one area might be deemed urban in another.  The criteria used to 
determine whether an area is rural or urban will undoubtedly 
change from county to county because land might be categorized 
as rural (i.e., more sparsely populated) in a more populous 
county but that same land might be categorized as urban in a 
                                                 
8  Black's Law Dictionary defines "country" as "[r]ural, as 
distinguished from urban areas," country, Black's Law Dictionary 
(6th ed. 1990), the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as 
"[a]n area or expanse outside cities and towns; a rural area," 
country, American Heritage Dictionary (5th ed. 2011), and the 
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines it in part as "[o]f or 
pertaining to rural as distinct from urban districts; situated 
or living in the country; belonging to or characteristic of the 
country, esp. as contrasted with the town."  Country, Shorter 
Oxford English Dictionary (6th ed. 2007). 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
16 
 
less populous county.  Merely contrasting "rural" with "urban" 
is unhelpful and gives no clues as to how one would go about 
ascertaining what constitutes "rural" and what constitutes 
"urban."  There is no way to determine how sparsely populated an 
area must be in order to be rural, and the common dictionary 
definitions do not include such criteria.  Saying that "rural" 
means 
"characteristic 
of, 
or 
related 
to, 
the 
country," 
"comparatively less densely populated by people or buildings," 
or "not urban"——as the Town would have us define it——is little 
more than a tautology.  It is merely a melding of common 
dictionary 
definitions, 
which 
lack 
objective 
definitional 
content.  The general definition is not, as the Town insists, 
"workable and pragmatic"; it is utterly indeterminate.  Nor are 
we able to discern a better, more usable definition given the 
vagueness of common dictionary definitions. 
¶20 The purpose of Wis. Stat. § 59.54, as expressed in its 
text, supplies an additional reason to reject the Town's 
interpretation.  Ascribing different meaning to "rural" on a 
town-by-town basis is unworkable and undermines the purpose of 
§ 59.54.  "[P]urpose [is] perfectly relevant to a plain-meaning 
interpretation 
of 
an 
unambiguous 
statute 
as 
long 
as 
the . . . purpose [is] ascertainable from the text and structure 
of the statute itself, rather than extrinsic sources, such as 
legislative history."  Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶48.  The purpose 
of § 59.54(4) and (4m) is expressed in the text of the statute:  
to allow counties to establish naming or numbering systems "to 
aid[] 
in 
fire 
protection, 
emergency 
services, 
and 
civil 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
17 
 
defense."  § 59.54(4).  The Town's (and the court of appeals') 
construction of "rural" as a constraint on implementation of 
such 
systems 
would 
frustrate 
the 
public 
safety 
purpose 
pronounced in the statute.  A county would be required to make a 
largely arbitrary determination of the extent to which a naming 
or numbering system should apply to particular areas within each 
town, based upon relative population density, effectively 
precluding any uniformity within the system.  Because of varying 
population characteristics, the definition of "rural" would be 
inconsistent, resulting in the statute's application varying 
from county to county, from town to town, and, under the court 
of appeals' construction, even within towns because only "rural" 
portions of towns would participate in the system.  Such 
variation would hinder rather than help a county's provision of 
emergency services, frustrating the explicit statutory purpose.  
"A textually permissible interpretation that furthers rather 
than obstructs the document's purpose should be favored."  
Scalia, supra ¶15, 63; see also Student Ass'n of Univ. of 
Wisconsin-Milwaukee 
v. 
Baum, 
74 
Wis. 2d 283, 
294-95, 
246 
N.W.2d 622 (1976) (explaining "the purpose of the whole act is 
to be sought and is favored over a construction which will 
defeat the manifest object of the act").  Given the absence of 
any textual indication that "rural" has a legally operative 
meaning, the purpose expressed in the language of the statute 
lends additional support to our rejection of the Town's 
interpretation of "rural" as a town-by-town limitation on the 
scope of Marathon County's authority. 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
18 
 
¶21 Marathon County's proffered definition of "rural" as 
"unincorporated," while more precise than the definition the 
Town proposes, fares no better.  At oral argument, Marathon 
County explained that by "unincorporated" it meant towns that 
had not incorporated into villages or cities; in other words, 
Marathon County's use of "unincorporated" simply means "towns."9  
But defining "rural" to mean "town" is duplicative of "in 
towns."  It creates unnecessary surplusage rather than giving 
independent meaning to "rural," which would leave us where we 
started: 
 
"rural" 
has 
no 
independent 
legal 
meaning.  
Furthermore, "rural" does not mean "unincorporated" or "town," 
even if towns are generally rural.  "Rural" means something 
characteristic of or related to the country or areas that are 
more sparsely populated.  In the absence of a statutory 
definition showing that the legislature intended "rural" to mean 
"unincorporated" or "town" we will not read one into the 
statute.  The text of the statute says Marathon County's 
authority to establish a naming or numbering system is limited 
to towns; therefore, this is the meaning we apply.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 59.54(4). 
                                                 
9 Marathon 
County 
is 
correct. 
 
Three 
categories 
of 
municipalities exist in Wisconsin:  towns, villages, and cities.  
Towns are corporate bodies, see Wis. Stat. § 60.01(1) ("A town 
is a body corporate[.]"), but may, under certain circumstances, 
incorporate into villages or cities.  See generally Wis. Stat. 
§ 66.0203. 
 
Any 
municipal 
territory 
that 
has 
not 
been 
incorporated into a village or a city remains unincorporated 
territory, that is, a town.  Accordingly, "unincorporated" 
territory and "town" are one and the same. 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
19 
 
¶22 Our analysis is supported by other uses of "rural" in 
the statutes, which demonstrate that when the legislature wants 
to give "rural" a legally operative meaning, it has done so by 
defining the term.  For example, in Wis. Stat. § 85.08(5), the 
legislature defined "rural municipality" as "[a] city, town or 
village with a population of 4,000 or less" or "[a] city, town 
or village that is located in a county with a population density 
of less than 150 persons per square mile," and in Wis. Stat. 
§ 231.35(1)(d) it defined "rural" as "outside a metropolitan 
statistical area specified under 42 CFR 412.62(f)(ii)(A) or in a 
city, village, or town with a population of not more than 
14,000."  While these definitions of "rural" differ from each 
other, each provides objective criteria for applying what is 
otherwise an amorphous term.  Each legislatively drafted 
definition provides content capable of application whereas 
"rural," as generally understood, does not.   
¶23 In contrast, the legislature does not define "rural" 
in Wis. Stat. § 59.54(4) and (4m).  We are left with general 
dictionary definitions of the word, which are too vague to apply 
in any meaningful manner.  Any attempt to give legally operative 
meaning to "rural" using its general definition requires us to 
add words to the statute.  Nothing within the statutory language 
suggests that "rural" denotes shifting boundary lines for a 
county's 
authority 
based 
on 
population 
density 
or 
other 
criteria.  The lack of any workable definition of "rural" and 
the placement of "rural" as a modifier of the "naming or 
numbering system" suggests the only reasonable reading of the 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
20 
 
text renders "rural" merely descriptive of the "naming or 
numbering system" and the "roads and intersections" within the 
system.  "Rural" does not impose an additional territorial 
limitation on a county's authority.  We decline to transform a 
stylistic mannerism into an independent legal limitation absent 
any textual directive to do so.10 
III.   CONCLUSION 
¶24 Marathon County's authority to establish a rural 
naming or numbering system under Wis. Stat. § 59.54(4) and (4m) 
is plain.  The statutory text provides that a county may 
establish such a system "in towns."  Accordingly, Marathon 
County acted within its authority by enacting an ordinance to 
create a uniform naming and numbering system in towns throughout 
Marathon County.  The text does not support the Town's 
                                                 
10 The parties appear to agree that towns were generally 
rural when Wis. Stat. § 59.54 was enacted in 1957.  The Town 
specifically states that "it is important for the Court to note 
that in 1956, the unincorporated areas in counties in the State 
of 
Wisconsin 
were 
made 
up 
almost 
exclusively 
by 
sparse 
populations that were almost certainly rural."  Marathon County 
similarly maintains that the word "rural" described the nature 
of the system that existed in 1957.  If true, the predominantly 
rural character of towns at the time § 59.54 was enacted could 
explain why the legislature chose to call the addressing system 
under subsections (4) and (4m) "a rural naming or numbering 
system."  The parties' apparent agreement suggests potential 
stylistic reasons the drafters chose to include the word in the 
statute.  This is consistent with our analysis of the statutory 
language that "rural" is merely a general description of the 
naming or numbering system and the roads subject to it.  We need 
not resolve this historical detail because "rural" does not 
restrict the locations where naming or numbering systems may be 
established.   
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
21 
 
construction of "rural" as an additional limitation on the 
territorial scope of Marathon County's authority to implement a 
rural naming or numbering system.  "Rural" merely describes the 
naming or numbering system and affording it any meaning beyond 
this would require reading additional words into the statute, 
which we decline to do. 
By the Court.——The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed. 
¶25 SHIRLEY ABRAHAMSON, J., withdrew from participation 
before oral argument. 
¶26 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2017AP2021   
 
 
 
1