## Facts

- Landowners petitioned for direct annexation of a roughly rectangular 28-acre parcel from the Town of Pleasant Prairie to the City of Kenosha.
- The parcel’s north edge was contiguous to the city limits, which coincided with a railroad right-of-way.
- The territory included railroad right-of-way and three privately owned parcels; no electors resided in the territory.
- Only the principal landowners signed the petition, but they owned more than half the land area, satisfying the direct-annexation signature requirement.
- The day after filing the annexation petition, the landowners sought industrial rezoning from the City.
- The City adopted an ordinance annexing the territory; the Town filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the annexation.
- The Town did not dispute statutory procedural compliance, but argued the annexation was invalid under the judicial “rule of reason” due to zoning-related motive, lack of municipal need, and arbitrary boundary selection.

## Issues

1. Whether the annexation violated the “rule of reason” because zoning considerations allegedly made the City’s action arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
2. Whether the City lacked a reasonable need for the annexed territory, making the annexation invalid under the rule of reason.
3. Whether the annexation boundaries were arbitrarily or capriciously drawn.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the annexation ordinance.
- The Town failed to overcome the presumption of validity applicable to annexation ordinances.
- Zoning-related considerations did not, without proof of improper conduct, render the annexation arbitrary or capricious.
- The City demonstrated a reasonable need for the territory, including planned industrial development and the ability to provide municipal services.
- The boundaries were compact and contiguous and were not shown to be arbitrarily or capriciously fixed.

## Legal Principles

- Wisconsin’s “rule of reason” requires an annexation to: (1) serve the public interest, (2) reflect a reasonable municipal need for the territory, and (3) use boundaries not arbitrarily or capriciously drawn.
- Annexation ordinances are presumed valid; the challenger bears the burden to prove invalidity under the rule of reason.
- A landowner’s desire for services and zoning compatible with intended land use may legitimately motivate annexation; zoning-related motive alone does not invalidate an otherwise reasonable annexation.
- Compact, contiguous territory described by the petition, without irregular “shoestring” features or distortive line-drawing, supports a finding that boundaries are not arbitrary.

## Conclusion

The annexation was upheld because the Town did not prove arbitrariness, lack of reasonable municipal need, or improper boundary selection under Wisconsin’s rule of reason, and zoning-related motivations did not independently invalidate the annexation.


Town of Pleasant Prairie v. City of Kenosha, 75 Wis. 2d 322, 249 N.W.2d 581 (Wis. 1977)