Dawson v. Town of Jackson
2011 WI 77
Wis.2011Background
- Dawsons sought to discontinue a town-line road (Wausaukee Road) lying on the Cedarburg–Jackson boundary; joint January 9, 2008 meeting had Cedarburg at 3 of 5 seats and Jackson with all 5 in attendance; Jackson voted yes, Cedarburg voted no.
- Dawsons filed June 20, 2008 for declaratory judgment under Wis. Stat. § 806.04 that the joint board action discontinued the road; circuit court granted summary judgment for Dawsons.
- Cedarburg appealed, arguing § 82.21(2) could not be satisfied by aggregate votes and that declaratory relief was improper because certiorari under § 82.15/68.13 was the proper remedy.
- Court of Appeals affirmed 2010, holding aggregate counting required and that declaratory judgment was proper outside certiorari under § 68.13.
- Supreme Court granted review to interpret the phrase “acting together” in Wis. Stat. § 82.21(2) and to address whether certiorari precludes declaratory judgment, and to determine related equitable estoppel issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'acting together' in § 82.21(2) | Dawsons: votes should be aggregated as if one board. | Cedarburg: boards act independently; no aggregate counting. | Ambiguous; does not require aggregate voting; both boards must approve |
| Certiorari vs. declaratory judgment under highway orders | Declaratory judgment appropriate to interpret 'acting together.' | Certiorari under § 68.13 is the prescribed remedy; § 806.04 not available. | Certiorari is the prescribed method; declaratory judgment inappropriate |
| Equitable estoppel for prior representations | Dawsons should be estopped from positions conflicting with prior representations. | Estoppel not established. | Not reached by the majority; issue reserved for potential later consideration |
| Legislative intent and statutory history—interpretation of 'acting together' | Interpretation supports aggregation from historical practice. | Legislative history supports non-aggregation to preserve municipal independence. | Ambiguity persists; majority chooses non-aggregation reading while noting legislative history is inconclusive |
| Effect of § 82.15 on declaratory relief | Declaratory judgment should be available to interpret law. | § 82.15 governs review of highway orders; declaratory relief incompatible. | Certiorari is exclusive; declaratory relief allowed only where § 82.15 is not applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalal v. State ex rel. City of Madison, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004 WI 58) (statutory interpretation; context and ambiguity)
- State ex rel. City of Madison v. Walsh, 247 Wis. 317 (1945) (apportionment requires majority from attendees; acting together not strictly aggregate)
- Town of Muskego v. Town of Vernon, 19 Wis. 2d 159 (1963) (town-line highway classification; independence of towns; notice and procedure)
- Town of Seif v. Town of Eaton, 153 Wis. 657 (1913) (aggregate considerations for town-line costs; authority to bind both towns)