Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

High court puzzled by lawsuit over highway project

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//January 18, 2017//

High court puzzled by lawsuit over highway project

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//January 18, 2017//

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court got an earful Tuesday from representatives of a town resident who was upset after local officials retroactively approved changes to a nearby intersection.

The case, Margaret Pulera v. Town of Richmond, stems from a dispute over a highway project that reconfigured an intersection where Rock-Walworth County Line Road meets Highway M, near the towns of Johnstown and Richmond.  The work was allowed to proceed after approval from the Rock County Board of Supervisors. Crucially, though, the towns did not initially weigh in on the project.

It was only after the work was completed in 2014 that town officials passed resolutions retroactively bestowing their approval.

The towns also issued highway orders for the project. Highway orders are generally used to authorize changes to local roadways.

The orders in this case gave residents control again of parts of the roadways that ceased to be used because of the reconfiguration work. They eliminated the towns’ responsibility for maintaining those sections of roadway.

Margaret Pulera, a resident of the town of Darien, asked the courts to review the towns’ actions, alleging the new intersection was unsafe.

The main question now before the state Supreme Court is whether Pulera filed her lawsuit in a timely manner. State law requires petitions for review to be filed within a certain window of time. Even so, the requirements set by the statutes governing town highway orders are not consistent with those set by those governing municipal administrative procedures.

The Supreme Court had noted that discrepancy in a previous decision. Even so, the justices have yet to provide a resolution.

Pulera has been arguing that the court should adopt a rule that would have the clock begin running once an order has been filed with the register of deeds. The towns, in contrast, argue that the clock should start once a town board casts a vote on a particular matter.

Some of the justices expressed wonderment on Tuesday both about the facts of the case and Pulera’s request for relief.

Justice Annette Ziegler said it appears some of the fault lies with Rock County officials. In going forward with the project, Ziegler said, they had apparently not been following procedures laid out by state laws.

“It seems to me it was done backwards,” she said. “What do you do with a law when no one follows it?”

Chief Justice Pat Roggensack asked a lawyer representing the towns how her clients could conceivably be disadvantaged by a rule that would give parties like Pulera more time to file a challenge.

Justice Shirley Abrahamson said the court should select one set of rules for review petitions and stick with them.

“What we’re trying to look for is a rule that would cover as many cases as possible,” she said to the town’s legal representative. “What’s your choice?”

She added that even if the court decided in Pulera’s favor, the result would have little to do with Pulera’s complaint about the road.

“Why are we hearing this case?” Abrahamson said. “It doesn’t have a result that is favorable to the plaintiff.”

Both Ziegler and Roggensack appeared to agree. Ziegler asked Pulera to lay out what form of relief she was seeking.

“This is a tough one because neither side is right,” Ziegler said.

Roggensack noted that Pulera has been arguing that the intersection is not safe. Even so, the orders that Pulera is challenging concern not the intersection itself but the parts of roadway that were rendered useless by the intersection project.

Roggensack also noted that even if the Supreme Court does choose to side with Pulera, she will not then be in a position to force Rock County to undo the intersection project.

“I’m just not tracking how your claim provides you with relief,” said Roggensack.

Absent from the bench Tuesday was Justice Dan Kelly, who is not participating in the case. Kelly had been Pulera’s attorney until Gov. Scott Walker appointed him to the bench last year. Pulera has since obtained new counsel.

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests