State ex rel. Carter v. Harper
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
182 Wis. 148, 196 N.W. 451, 33 A.L.R. 269 (1923)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Carter (plaintiff) was a realtor in the milk and dairy product business. In 1919, Carter purchased a lot and erected a building that he used as a dairy and milk pasteurizing plant. Eventually, the business had outgrown the capacity of the plant and it became impossible for Carter to conduct business in the plant in accordance with city and state health regulations. In 1921, Carter applied for a permit from the inspector of buildings of the city of Milwaukee (defendant) to construct an addition to the plant. Carter’s application was denied because the proposed addition violated the zoning ordinance of Milwaukee. According to Milwaukee’s ordinance, Carter’s plant was located in a residence district, and its use did not conform to the use permitted in residence districts. The ordinance provided that no building within a residence district that was devoted to a nonconforming use was permitted to be enlarged unless it is changed to a conforming use. Carter brought suit against Milwaukee and claimed that the ordinance was unreasonable and oppressive, deprived him of the equal protection of the laws, and took his property without due process of law and without compensation. The circuit court found in favor of Milwaukee and dismissed Carter’s case. Carter appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Owen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.