7 N.W.3d 455
Wis.2024Background
- The Village of Egg Harbor condemned 0.009 acres of property owned by Sojenhomer LLC to construct a sidewalk.
- Sojenhomer LLC operated a brewery and restaurant on the property and used the condemned parcel for parking.
- The sole purpose of the taking was to build a sidewalk as part of a road safety improvement project.
- Sojenhomer sued, arguing the condemnation was unlawful under Wis. Stat. §§ 32.015 and 61.34(3)(b), which prohibit condemnation to establish or extend a "pedestrian way."
- The circuit court sided with the Village, concluding sidewalks are not "pedestrian ways"; the Court of Appeals reversed, siding with Sojenhomer.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted review and reversed the Court of Appeals, holding in favor of the Village.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are sidewalks "pedestrian ways" under Wis. Stat. § 346.02(8)(a)? | Sojenhomer: Sidewalks fit the statutory definition of "a walk designated for the use of pedestrian travel;" thus, condemnation is barred. | Village: Statutes distinguish between sidewalks and pedestrian ways; sidewalks are part of a roadway and are not prohibited from condemnation. | No, sidewalks are defined separately from pedestrian ways; condemnation to build a sidewalk is not barred by statute. |
| Should context/history impact the meaning of "pedestrian way"? | Statutory definition should control; context indicates the term is broad and includes sidewalks. | Context and statutory history show the legislature treated sidewalks and pedestrian ways as separate, non-overlapping categories. | Statutory context/history confirm legislative intent to treat sidewalks and pedestrian ways as distinct. |
| Does use of both terms in statutes create surplusage if sidewalks are included in "pedestrian ways"? | Overlap is intentional; a broad definition means some surplusage is possible but not problematic. | Each term has a separate statutory function; including sidewalks would render statutory wording redundant. | No surplusage is created; terms are separate and must be read as such. |
| Can condemnation power be used for sidewalk construction under these statutes? | No; the restriction on condemnation of pedestrian ways applies. | Yes; prohibition does not extend to sidewalks, so condemnation is permissible. | Yes; condemnation for sidewalk construction is permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christus Lutheran Church v. DOT, 396 Wis. 2d 302 (clarifying that a property owner may challenge statutory authority of condemnation under Wis. Stat. § 32.05(5))
- Clean Wis., Inc. v. DNR, 398 Wis. 2d 433 (statutory interpretation requires examination of text and context)
- State v. Kizer, 403 Wis. 2d 142 (legal terms of art in statutes are interpreted according to their legal meaning)
- Augsburger v. Homestead Mut. Ins. Co., 359 Wis. 2d 385 (statutes using different terms are presumed to give each a unique meaning)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (approach to statutory interpretation in Wisconsin)