Court Opinion

ID: 9689728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:44:47.5867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:51.845072
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE
¶ 59. (concurring). I join the majority opinion *645except for the discussion about substantive due process. I write separately to state that Í would adopt the court of appeals discussion of the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim, Thorp v. Town of Lebanon, 225 Wis. 2d 672, 697-99, 593 N.W.2d 878 (Ct. App. 1999), in lieu of the discussion in the majority opinion at ¶¶ 45-52.
¶ 60. I agree with the court of appeals, 225 Wis. 2d at 697-99, that the law is unsettled about whether a zoning challenge can state a claim for violation of substantive due process. The majority dismisses the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim based on the alleged violation of Wis. Stat. § 60.61(4) by noting that the statute does not secure plaintiffs with property rights in their land. Majority op. at ¶ 48. The opinion's language suggests that plaintiffs need a statutorily created right to have a property interest in their land. I disagree.
¶ 61. For the reasons stated, I join the opinion except for the paragraphs relating to substantive due process. I would adopt the opinion of the court of appeals on this issue.
¶ 62. I am authorized to state that Justices ANN WALSH BRADLEY and DIANE S. SYKES join this concurrence.