My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:42:15 AM
Creation date
9/28/2007 8:06:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
10/04/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
180
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />ferent in nature. The court found that "cast...doubt not only on the <br />likelihood that the property could have been re-zoned, but. on the <br />expertise of the Landowners' purported experts as well. " <br />By not taking into account essential requirements for the particu- <br />lar zoning, the consultants failed to employ "the same level of in- <br />tellectual rigor that characterize[d] the practice of an expert in the <br />relevant field" and that "[b]y conducting such a limited investigation <br />regarding the proposed zoning change for the property [the consul- <br />tants] ignored basic principals of property valuation." <br />Federal rules of evidence required: "If scientific, technical or other <br />specialized knowledge will assist the trier or fact to understand the <br />evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a v\litness qualified as an <br />expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may <br />testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testi- <br />mony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the <br />product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the ,;vitness has <br />applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." <br />Because the landowners' witnesses did not meet these basic crite- <br />ria, they were both dismissed. <br /> <br />See also: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. <br />579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d 1200, <br />Prod. Liab. Rep. (CCH) P 13494,37 Fed. R. Evid. Servo 1,23 Envtl. <br />L. Rep. 20979 (1993). <br /> <br />Immunity-Developer sues building inspector who gave <br />erroneous advice <br /> <br />Argues bad advice was not 'discretionary act' protected by <br />municipal immunity provision <br /> <br />Citation: Lemel Homes, Inc. v. Village of Whitefish Bay, 2007 WL <br />2089370 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) <br /> <br />WISCONSIN (07/24/07)-Lemel became interested in a lot for sale <br />located in Whitefish Bay. The realtor told Lemel that he had in- <br />quired as to whether the lot could be divided into two parcels, and <br />the village's building inspector had told him that it could. <br />In the meantime, the building inspector asked the city attor- <br />ney about the subdivision, and the attorney told him that the issue <br />would have to be decided by the village zoning board. Lemellater <br />contacted the inspector to make sure that the lot could be subdivid- <br />ed and claimed that he was never told that the decision would be up <br />to the Village Board. <br /> <br />S <br /> <br />42 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.