Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Sufficiency of Evidence

By: Derek Hawkins//September 9, 2021//

Sufficiency of Evidence

By: Derek Hawkins//September 9, 2021//

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: Island Camping, Inc., v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Case No.: 2019AP2284

Officials: FITZPATRICK, P.J.

Focus: Sufficiency of Evidence

For over thirty years, Island Camping, Inc. has operated a commercial campground on an approximately twenty-acre narrow strip of land along the Mississippi River. A bridge spanning the river between Minnesota and Wisconsin has stood over a slice of the Island Camping property the entire time it has operated the campground. The Department of Transportation (“DOT”), through eminent domain procedures, permanently took a .64-acre portion of the Island Camping property, as well as a temporary limited easement of 1.61 acres, for the construction of a replacement bridge over the Mississippi River and demolition of the previous bridge. In this lawsuit, Island Camping contends that the DOT’s taking of its property left the remainder of its property as an “uneconomic remnant” within the meaning of WIS. STAT. § 32.05(3m) (2019- 20) and, as a result, the DOT is required by statute to purchase the remainder of the Island Camping property.

Following a trial to the Pierce County Circuit Court, the court concluded that the DOT’s partial taking, along with the effects of the TLE and the construction of the replacement bridge and demolition of the previous bridge, have caused the remaining Island Camping property to be an uneconomic remnant. The DOT appeals and argues that the circuit court based its decision on “improper considerations” not within the analytical framework of WIS. STAT § 32.05(3m). The first subject area of the circuit court’s purported error is the court’s reliance on evidence concerning the economic viability of the Island Camping business at the remaining property. We reject that argument from the DOT and conclude that the circuit court properly considered such evidence in light of the evidence presented by the parties at trial, the specific aspects of this particular property, and the holdings of the supreme court in Waller v. American Transmission Co., LLC, 2013 WI 77, 350 Wis. 2d 242, 833 N.W.2d 764. The second subject area the DOT complains of is that the circuit court based its decision, in part, on evidence regarding the temporary effects of the bridge construction and demolition. We agree with the DOT that the circuit court erred in relying on the temporary problems caused by construction and demolition in coming to its conclusion that the remaining Island Camping property is an uneconomic remnant. In addition, we reject Island Camping’s argument that the circuit court’s error was harmless and did not affect the substantial rights of the DOT. Accordingly, we remand this matter for a new trial.

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests