Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. v. City of Madison
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1DissentShirley S. Abrahamson, C.J.
¶ 94. (dissenting). I agree with the circuit court's excellent decision. I conclude, as did the circuit court after reviewing all the evidence presented at trial, that the City of Madison properly assessed Adams's billboards using the income approach, after considering various approaches to valuation. The obvious purpose of an outdoor sign is for public display in a desirable location. As the circuit court stated, "A billboard does not generate income sitting in a warehouse; its value is a function of its permit and its location. That income-generating capacity is inextricably intertwined…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Gottlieb v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Rosen v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- State Ex Rel. Markarian v. City of CudahyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
- Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Kenosha County Board of ReviewWisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
- State Ex Rel. Geipel v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.