Oneida County v. Converse’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 117 Wis. 2d 529 - Ball v. District No. 4, Area Board · 85 Wis. 2d 518 - Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources · 101 Wis. 2d 472 - Law Enforcement Standards Board v. Village of Lyndon Station · 97 Wis. 2d 426 - Wisconsin Ass'n of Food Dealers v. City of Madison · 51 Wis. 2d 70 - Menzer v. Village of Elkhart Lake
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the instant matter, through NR 325.065, the legislature has expressly authorized an exemption for structures damaged by wind from the 50% requirement for rebuilding nonconforming structures. The county ordinance runs contrary to this. Denying the wind, vandalism or fire exemption is not merely going further than the state, but is acting counter to the state. The state regulation and the local ordinance are diametrically opposed within the narrow issue of rebuilding boat houses damaged by wind, vandalism or fire. The local ordinance is disallowing what the legislature has expressly licensed or authorized. We feel that it is crucial in this instance that the state, through the DNR, has affirmatively acted to exempt boathouses damaged by wind. That action made the ordinance and the state law in conflict and the two rules' relationship distinct from one where local governments have merely enacted stricter standards than the state. The Oneida County ordinance is therefore invalid to the extent that it denies the wind, vandalism or fire exemption.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A local ordinance is invalid if either (1) express statutory language has withdrawn, revoked or restricted the municipality's power to issue such ordinance, (2) the challenged ordinance is logically inconsistent with state legislation, or (3) the challenged ordinance infringes the spirit of a state law or general policy of the state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“municipalities may not disallow what the legislature has expressly licensed or authorized.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.