Court Opinion

ID: 9658272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:53:55.926236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:53.275805
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
{on motion for rehearing). Appellants’
brief in support of their motion for rehearing points out that it was not their original contention that sec. 40.035, Stats., denies due process to the city of La Crosse but rather that it denies due process to its citizens. Thus the city raised this constitutional issue in its representative capacity. This distinction was recognized in Associated Hospital Service v. Milwaukee (1961), 13 Wis. (2d) 447, 468, 469, *239a109 N. W. (2d) 271, which held that a city when acting in such a representative capacity may raise the question of the unconstitutionality of a state statute when the issue presented is one of great public concern or interest.
However, the reason for such an exception disappears when electors and taxpayers of the city are parties to the action. Under such circumstances there is no necessity for the city acting in a representative capacity. Here two electors and taxpayers of the city of La Crosse are parties to the action and have raised the identical constitutional issue raised by the city.
The motion for rehearing is denied with costs.