Background

• Marathon County adopted Ordinance O-7-16 in 2016 to create a countywide addressing/naming system for unincorporated areas, requiring 40 towns (including Rib Mountain) to participate.
• Town of Rib Mountain sued for declaratory relief, arguing Wis. Stat. § 59.54(4) limits counties to establishing naming/numbering systems only in "rural" portions of towns, so the county ordinance exceeded authority.
• The circuit court denied relief, holding "rural" modifies the type of system, not the territorial scope (which is "in towns").
• The court of appeals reversed, defining "rural" as non-urban and remanding for the county to identify which parts of the town qualify as "rural."
• The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and reversed the court of appeals, holding the statute authorizes counties to establish a "rural naming or numbering system in towns," and "rural" is descriptive, not a territorial constraint.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• CED Props., LLC v. City of Oshkosh, 380 Wis. 2d 399 (Wis. 2018) (statutory interpretation standard)
• Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (plain-meaning and statutory construction principles)
• Liberty Grove Town Bd. v. Door Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 284 Wis. 2d 814 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005) (background on county authority to establish rural naming/numbering systems)
• Milwaukee Dist. Council 48 v. Milwaukee Cty., 385 Wis. 2d 748 (Wis. 2019) (discussion of surplusage canon and statutory reading)
• Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (2004) (preferring plain meaning to avoid surplusage-induced ambiguity)
• Student Ass'n of Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee v. Baum, 74 Wis. 2d 283 (Wis. 1976) (statutory purpose guides interpretation)