enacting clause (Wisconsin) · Go Syfert
← Wisconsin issues

enacting clause in Wisconsin

8 Wisconsin opinions name it 1 courts 1909–1980 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Pabst Brewing Co. v. City of Milwaukeegreen
wis · 1912 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1950–1950
2 sentences

1950It was stated in Pabst Brewing Co. v. Milwaukee (1912), 148 Wis. 582, 586, 587 , 133 N. W. 1112 : “The distinction between an exception and a proviso in a statute is clearly stated in Rowell v. Janvrin, 151 N. Y. 60 , 45 N. E. 398 , as follows: “ ‘An exception exempts something absolutely from the operation of a statute by express words in the enacting clause; a proviso defeats its operation conditionally.

1950It was stated in Pabst Brewing Co. v. Milwaukee (1912), 148 Wis. 582, 586, 587 , 133 N. W. 1112 : “The distinction between an exception and a proviso in a statute is clearly stated in Rowell v. Janvrin, 151 N. Y. 60 , 45 N. E. 398 , as follows: “ ‘An exception exempts something absolutely from the operation of a statute by express words in the enacting clause; a proviso defeats its operation conditionally.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (21)

CaseCitedYears
Cavadini v. Larson green
wis · 1933
2 sentences

1968“We held in Kugler v. Milwaukee (1932), 208 Wis. 251, 255 , 242 N. W. 481 , and Cavadini v. Larson (1933), 211 Wis. 200, 208 , 248 N. W. 209 , and now repeat, a clear and plain declaration in the enacting clause that a statute is repealed must be given effect according to its terms.

1968“We held in Kugler v. Milwaukee (1932), 208 Wis. 251, 255 , 242 N. W. 481 , and Cavadini v. Larson (1933), 211 Wis. 200, 208 , 248 N. W. 209 , and now repeat, a clear and plain declaration in the enacting clause that a statute is repealed must be given effect according to its terms.

21957–1968
Kugler v. City of Milwaukee green
wis · 1932
2 sentences

1968“We held in Kugler v. Milwaukee (1932), 208 Wis. 251, 255 , 242 N. W. 481 , and Cavadini v. Larson (1933), 211 Wis. 200, 208 , 248 N. W. 209 , and now repeat, a clear and plain declaration in the enacting clause that a statute is repealed must be given effect according to its terms.

1968“We held in Kugler v. Milwaukee (1932), 208 Wis. 251, 255 , 242 N. W. 481 , and Cavadini v. Larson (1933), 211 Wis. 200, 208 , 248 N. W. 209 , and now repeat, a clear and plain declaration in the enacting clause that a statute is repealed must be given effect according to its terms.

21957–1968
Rowell v. . Janvrin green
ny · 1896
2 sentences

1950It was stated in Pabst Brewing Co. v. Milwaukee (1912), 148 Wis. 582, 586, 587 , 133 N. W. 1112 : “The distinction between an exception and a proviso in a statute is clearly stated in Rowell v. Janvrin, 151 N. Y. 60 , 45 N. E. 398 , as follows: “ ‘An exception exempts something absolutely from the operation of a statute by express words in the enacting clause; a proviso defeats its operation conditionally.

1912The. distinction be tween an exception and a proviso in a statute is clearly stated in Rowell v. Janvrin, 151 N. Y. 60 , 15 N. E. 398 , as follows: “An exception exempts something absolutely from the operation of a statute by express words in the enacting clause; a proviso defeats its operation conditionally.

21912–1950
State ex rel. Dunlap v. Nohl green
wis · 1902
2 sentences

1980Dunlop v. Nohl, 113 Wis. 15, 29 , 88 N.W. 1004 (1902), a municipal ordinance was challenged on the ground that its enacting clause read, “The mayor *342 and common council of the city of Ripon do ordain as follows,” while the relevant statute required the enacting clause to be, “The common council of the city of-do ordain as follows.” The court rejected the challenge, saying — “We think the variance is immaterial.” The language used sufficiently asserted that the matter was ordained by the common council and the addition of the mayor’s sanction did not render it invalid. 2 In the early case of

1980Dunlop v. Nohl, 113 Wis. 15, 29 , 88 N.W. 1004 (1902), a municipal ordinance was challenged on the ground that its enacting clause read, “The mayor *342 and common council of the city of Ripon do ordain as follows,” while the relevant statute required the enacting clause to be, “The common council of the city of-do ordain as follows.” The court rejected the challenge, saying — “We think the variance is immaterial.” The language used sufficiently asserted that the matter was ordained by the common council and the addition of the mayor’s sanction did not render it invalid. 2 In the early case of

11980–1980
Wisconsin Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Fort Atkinson green
wis · 1927
2 sentences

1980Dunlop v. Nohl, 113 Wis. 15, 29 , 88 N.W. 1004 (1902), a municipal ordinance was challenged on the ground that its enacting clause read, “The mayor *342 and common council of the city of Ripon do ordain as follows,” while the relevant statute required the enacting clause to be, “The common council of the city of-do ordain as follows.” The court rejected the challenge, saying — “We think the variance is immaterial.” The language used sufficiently asserted that the matter was ordained by the common council and the addition of the mayor’s sanction did not render it invalid. 2 In the early case of

1980Dunlop v. Nohl, 113 Wis. 15, 29 , 88 N.W. 1004 (1902), a municipal ordinance was challenged on the ground that its enacting clause read, “The mayor *342 and common council of the city of Ripon do ordain as follows,” while the relevant statute required the enacting clause to be, “The common council of the city of-do ordain as follows.” The court rejected the challenge, saying — “We think the variance is immaterial.” The language used sufficiently asserted that the matter was ordained by the common council and the addition of the mayor’s sanction did not render it invalid. 2 In the early case of

11980–1980
Garcia v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. green
wis · 1950
2 sentences

1977The statute then points out that the only limitation where a claim is made against an estate is the requirement that the claim be timely filed. *40 That this interpretation is the only one permitted under these statutes and under Wisconsin law is clear from the language of Garcia v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co., 256 Wis. 633, 638 , 42 N.W.2d 288 (1950), in which we said: “ ‘An exception exempts something absolutely from the operation of a statute by express words in the enacting clause; a proviso defeats its operation conditionally.

1977The statute then points out that the only limitation where a claim is made against an estate is the requirement that the claim be timely filed. *40 That this interpretation is the only one permitted under these statutes and under Wisconsin law is clear from the language of Garcia v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co., 256 Wis. 633, 638 , 42 N.W.2d 288 (1950), in which we said: “ ‘An exception exempts something absolutely from the operation of a statute by express words in the enacting clause; a proviso defeats its operation conditionally.

11977–1977
Byrne v. State green
· 1860
1 sentence

1925Byrne v. State, 12 Wis. 519 ; Raynor v. State, 62 Wis. 289 , 22 N. W. 430 ; Splinter v. State, 140 Wis. 567 , 123 N. W. 97 ; Piper v. State, 163 Wis. 604 , 158 N. W. 319 .

11925–1925
Raynor v. State neutral
wis · 1885
2 sentences

1925Byrne v. State, 12 Wis. 519 ; Raynor v. State, 62 Wis. 289 , 22 N. W. 430 ; Splinter v. State, 140 Wis. 567 , 123 N. W. 97 ; Piper v. State, 163 Wis. 604 , 158 N. W. 319 .

1925Byrne v. State, 12 Wis. 519 ; Raynor v. State, 62 Wis. 289 , 22 N. W. 430 ; Splinter v. State, 140 Wis. 567 , 123 N. W. 97 ; Piper v. State, 163 Wis. 604 , 158 N. W. 319 .

11925–1925
Splinter v. State green
wis · 1909
2 sentences

1925Byrne v. State, 12 Wis. 519 ; Raynor v. State, 62 Wis. 289 , 22 N. W. 430 ; Splinter v. State, 140 Wis. 567 , 123 N. W. 97 ; Piper v. State, 163 Wis. 604 , 158 N. W. 319 .

1925Byrne v. State, 12 Wis. 519 ; Raynor v. State, 62 Wis. 289 , 22 N. W. 430 ; Splinter v. State, 140 Wis. 567 , 123 N. W. 97 ; Piper v. State, 163 Wis. 604 , 158 N. W. 319 .

11925–1925
Piper v. State neutral
wis · 1916
2 sentences

1925Byrne v. State, 12 Wis. 519 ; Raynor v. State, 62 Wis. 289 , 22 N. W. 430 ; Splinter v. State, 140 Wis. 567 , 123 N. W. 97 ; Piper v. State, 163 Wis. 604 , 158 N. W. 319 .

1925Byrne v. State, 12 Wis. 519 ; Raynor v. State, 62 Wis. 289 , 22 N. W. 430 ; Splinter v. State, 140 Wis. 567 , 123 N. W. 97 ; Piper v. State, 163 Wis. 604 , 158 N. W. 319 .

11925–1925
Kline v. State green
miss · 1870
1 sentence

1909Metzker v. People, 14 Ill. 101 ; Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , 72 N. E. 382 ; Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; State v. Williams, 20 Iowa, 98 ; State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 , 61 N. W. 241 ; State v. Gurney, 37 Me. 149 ; State v. Boyington, 56 Me. 512 ; Comm. v. Hart, 11 Cush. 130 ; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6 , 37 N. W. 888 ; Kline v. State, 44 Miss. 317 ; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; State v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500; Mayer v. State, 63 N. J.

11909–1909
United States v. Cook green
scotus · 1872
1 sentence

1909U. S. v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168, 173 , and cases cited in 22 Cyc. 346.

11909–1909
People v. Phippin green
mich · 1888
2 sentences

1909Metzker v. People, 14 Ill. 101 ; Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , 72 N. E. 382 ; Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; State v. Williams, 20 Iowa, 98 ; State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 , 61 N. W. 241 ; State v. Gurney, 37 Me. 149 ; State v. Boyington, 56 Me. 512 ; Comm. v. Hart, 11 Cush. 130 ; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6 , 37 N. W. 888 ; Kline v. State, 44 Miss. 317 ; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; State v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500; Mayer v. State, 63 N. J.

1909Metzker v. People, 14 Ill. 101 ; Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , 72 N. E. 382 ; Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; State v. Williams, 20 Iowa, 98 ; State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 , 61 N. W. 241 ; State v. Gurney, 37 Me. 149 ; State v. Boyington, 56 Me. 512 ; Comm. v. Hart, 11 Cush. 130 ; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6 , 37 N. W. 888 ; Kline v. State, 44 Miss. 317 ; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; State v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500; Mayer v. State, 63 N. J.

11909–1909
Metzker v. People green
ill · 1852
1 sentence

1909Metzker v. People, 14 Ill. 101 ; Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , 72 N. E. 382 ; Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; State v. Williams, 20 Iowa, 98 ; State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 , 61 N. W. 241 ; State v. Gurney, 37 Me. 149 ; State v. Boyington, 56 Me. 512 ; Comm. v. Hart, 11 Cush. 130 ; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6 , 37 N. W. 888 ; Kline v. State, 44 Miss. 317 ; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; State v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500; Mayer v. State, 63 N. J.

11909–1909
Sokel v. People green
ill · 1904
2 sentences

1909Metzker v. People, 14 Ill. 101 ; Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , 72 N. E. 382 ; Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; State v. Williams, 20 Iowa, 98 ; State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 , 61 N. W. 241 ; State v. Gurney, 37 Me. 149 ; State v. Boyington, 56 Me. 512 ; Comm. v. Hart, 11 Cush. 130 ; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6 , 37 N. W. 888 ; Kline v. State, 44 Miss. 317 ; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; State v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500; Mayer v. State, 63 N. J.

1909Metzker v. People, 14 Ill. 101 ; Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , 72 N. E. 382 ; Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; State v. Williams, 20 Iowa, 98 ; State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 , 61 N. W. 241 ; State v. Gurney, 37 Me. 149 ; State v. Boyington, 56 Me. 512 ; Comm. v. Hart, 11 Cush. 130 ; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6 , 37 N. W. 888 ; Kline v. State, 44 Miss. 317 ; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; State v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500; Mayer v. State, 63 N. J.

11909–1909
Alexander v. State neutral
ind · 1874
1 sentence

1909Metzker v. People, 14 Ill. 101 ; Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , 72 N. E. 382 ; Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; State v. Williams, 20 Iowa, 98 ; State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 , 61 N. W. 241 ; State v. Gurney, 37 Me. 149 ; State v. Boyington, 56 Me. 512 ; Comm. v. Hart, 11 Cush. 130 ; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6 , 37 N. W. 888 ; Kline v. State, 44 Miss. 317 ; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; State v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500; Mayer v. State, 63 N. J.

11909–1909
Russell v. State green
ind · 1875
1 sentence

1909Metzker v. People, 14 Ill. 101 ; Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , 72 N. E. 382 ; Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; State v. Williams, 20 Iowa, 98 ; State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 , 61 N. W. 241 ; State v. Gurney, 37 Me. 149 ; State v. Boyington, 56 Me. 512 ; Comm. v. Hart, 11 Cush. 130 ; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6 , 37 N. W. 888 ; Kline v. State, 44 Miss. 317 ; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; State v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500; Mayer v. State, 63 N. J.

11909–1909
State v. Gurney neutral
me · 1853
1 sentence

1909Metzker v. People, 14 Ill. 101 ; Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , 72 N. E. 382 ; Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; State v. Williams, 20 Iowa, 98 ; State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 , 61 N. W. 241 ; State v. Gurney, 37 Me. 149 ; State v. Boyington, 56 Me. 512 ; Comm. v. Hart, 11 Cush. 130 ; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6 , 37 N. W. 888 ; Kline v. State, 44 Miss. 317 ; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; State v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500; Mayer v. State, 63 N. J.

11909–1909
State v. Boyington neutral
· 1869
1 sentence

1909Metzker v. People, 14 Ill. 101 ; Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , 72 N. E. 382 ; Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; State v. Williams, 20 Iowa, 98 ; State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 , 61 N. W. 241 ; State v. Gurney, 37 Me. 149 ; State v. Boyington, 56 Me. 512 ; Comm. v. Hart, 11 Cush. 130 ; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6 , 37 N. W. 888 ; Kline v. State, 44 Miss. 317 ; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; State v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500; Mayer v. State, 63 N. J.

11909–1909
State v. Williams green
iowa · 1865
1 sentence

1909Metzker v. People, 14 Ill. 101 ; Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , 72 N. E. 382 ; Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; State v. Williams, 20 Iowa, 98 ; State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 , 61 N. W. 241 ; State v. Gurney, 37 Me. 149 ; State v. Boyington, 56 Me. 512 ; Comm. v. Hart, 11 Cush. 130 ; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6 , 37 N. W. 888 ; Kline v. State, 44 Miss. 317 ; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; State v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500; Mayer v. State, 63 N. J.

11909–1909
State v. VanVliet green
iowa · 1894
1 sentence

1909Metzker v. People, 14 Ill. 101 ; Sokel v. People, 212 Ill. 238 , 72 N. E. 382 ; Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; State v. Williams, 20 Iowa, 98 ; State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 , 61 N. W. 241 ; State v. Gurney, 37 Me. 149 ; State v. Boyington, 56 Me. 512 ; Comm. v. Hart, 11 Cush. 130 ; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6 , 37 N. W. 888 ; Kline v. State, 44 Miss. 317 ; State v. McGlynn, 34 N. H. 422; State v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500; Mayer v. State, 63 N. J.

11909–1909

Where else courts name it

IL 53 (1874–2025) NY 42 (1862–2015) AL 39 (1874–2013) GA 32 (1868–2019) PA 30 (1833–2018) FL 27 (1904–2025) TX 26 (1881–2016) WA 24 (1901–2002) CA 20 (1882–2014) MI 16 (1890–2016) OK 15 (1908–2005) MO 14 (1886–2016) NC 14 (1885–2017) OR 13 (1912–1993) NJ 13 (1828–1975) CT 12 (1856–2018) KS 12 (1902–1998) AR 12 (1897–2014) IN 12 (1875–1969) IA 12 (1865–1995) MN 11 (1898–2017) HI 11 (1904–2019) MD 10 (1881–2024) NE 10 (1895–1989) WV 9 (1889–1991) MA 9 (1896–2015) WI 8 (1909–1980) NM 7 (1889–1988) SD 6 (1899–2021) KY 6 (1914–1994) UT 6 (1900–1939) VA 6 (1922–2006) ME 5 (1830–1970) LA 5 (1926–2009) CO 4 (1903–2025) NV 4 (1875–2006) MT 4 (1890–1958) RI 3 (1886–1989) TN 3 (1907–2006) MS 2 (1877–1911) VT 2 (1883–1898) ID 2 (1965–1990) PR 2 (1916–1926) DE 2 (1947–1969) OH 2 (1898–1911)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check