Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 1 — SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION OF THE STATE
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 1.01 (2026)

State sovereignty and jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.011.01 State sovereignty and jurisdiction. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries declared in article II of the constitution, subject only to such rights of jurisdiction as have been or shall be acquired by the United States over any places therein; and the governor, and all subordinate officers of the state, shall maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction. Such sovereignty and jurisdiction are asserted and exercised over the St. Croix River from the eastern shore thereof to the center or thread of the same, and the exclusive jurisdiction of the state of Minnesota to authorize any person to obstruct the navigation of said river east of the center or thread thereof, or to enter upon the same and build piers, booms or other fixtures, or to occupy any part of said river east of the center or thread thereof for the purpose of sorting or holding logs, is denied; such acts can only be authorized by the concurrent consent of the legislature of this state.
1.01 HistoryHistory: 1983 a. 538.
1.01 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See also article IX, of the Wisconsin Constitution. As to sky sovereignty, see s. 114.02.
1.01 AnnotationTreaties between the federal government and Menominee tribe do not deprive the state of criminal subject matter jurisdiction over crimes committed by a Menominee tribal member outside of the reservation. Sturdevant v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 247, 251 N.W.2d 50 (1977).
1.01 AnnotationJurisdiction over crimes committed by tribal members on the Menominee reservation is vested in the federal and tribal governments. State v. LaTender, 86 Wis. 2d 410, 273 N.W.2d 260 (1979).
1.01 AnnotationThe state has no jurisdiction to prosecute a traffic offense committed by a Menominee tribal member on a highway within the boundaries of the Menominee reservation. State v. Webster, 114 Wis. 2d 418, 338 N.W.2d 474 (1983).
1.01 AnnotationProperty held in trust by the federal government for the Menominee tribe and tribal members is not subject to state taxation. The tribe and tribal members residing and working in Menominee County are not subject to the state income tax. 66 Atty. Gen. 290.
1.01 AnnotationDiscussing the jurisdictional relationship between the state and Menominee tribe. 70 Atty. Gen. 36.
1.01 AnnotationDiscussing state, county, and tribal jurisdiction to regulate traffic on streets in housing projects that have been built and are maintained by the Winnebago tribe on tribal lands. 78 Atty. Gen. 122.
1.01 AnnotationAs a general matter, Wisconsin is without power to tax Ojibwe lands owned by tribal members within the Bad River, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, and Red Cliff reservations created in an 1854 treaty. That is true even though the parcels in question are fully alienable, meaning their current owners can sell them at will. Under the facts of this case, the tribal lands were sold by past tribal owners to non-Indians before coming back into tribal ownership, but the one-time act of alienating reservation property to a non-Indian did not surrender the parcel’s tax immunity for all time. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin v. Evers, 46 F.4th 552 (2022).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1941–2026 · leading case: Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue v. Menasha Corp., 2008 WI 88 (Wis. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue v. Menasha Corp., 2008 WI 88 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 2× “Berson, Federal Tax Litigation § 1.01[7], at 1-13 (2008). In reviewing decisions of the United States Tax Court, the federal courts owe no deference to the Tax Court's interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code, or to the Tax Court's interpretations of the law generally.”
Solowicz v. Forward Geneva Nat'l, LLC, 2010 WI 20 (Wis. 2010). · cites it 2× “02(1m), unit owner's association, or a nonprofit corporation created to own and operate portions of a planned community that may assess unit owners for the costs incurred in the performance of the association's obligations.”
Wisconsin Indus. Energy Grp., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 2012 WI 89 (Wis. 2012). · cites it 2× “Additionally, the PSC recognized that Wisconsin law specifically contemplates a limitation based on the state's physical boundaries, citing Wis. Stat. § 1.01 ("[t]he sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries declared in article II of…”
In Re Kedrowski, 284 B.R. 439 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2002). · cites it 2× “The Ho-Chunk Nation has chosen to make per capita distributions to tribal members, and Section 1.01 of the tribal ordinance specifically states that it “is intended to provide for fair and equitable per capita distribution to duly enrolled tribal members of revenues .”
Christian v. Birch, 763 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Wis. Stat. § 1.01 (2007) ("The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries declared in article II of the constitution.”
Repub. Airlines, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 464 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries declared in article II of the constitution, subject only to such rights of jurisdiction as have been or shall be acquired by the United States over any places therein; and the governor, and…”
State v. Thompson, 493 N.W.2d 729 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “In fact, Section 1.01, clarifies the "[authority and objectives of [the] rules": Final discretion remains with the sentencing judge.”
Muehlenbein v. West Bend Mut. Ins., 499 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Long, The Law OF LIABILITY Insurance § 1.01[1] at 1-2, 1-3 (1992). An endorsement is "a provision added to an insurance contract altering its scope or application that takes precedence over printed portions of the policy in conflict therewith.”
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 908 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Wis. 1996). · cites it 4× “Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 1.01[B] at 1-24, n. 101 (1995). The Nimmers’ views notwithstanding, Baltimore Orioles is still good ease law in this circuit and I am bound to apply it.”
Gable v. Universal Acceptance Corp., 338 F. Supp. 3d 943 (E.D. Wis. 2018). “As the RESTATEMENT explains, the term "independent contractor" does not exclude an agency relationship: "[T]he common term 'independent contractor' is equivocal in meaning and confusing in usage because some termed independent contractors are agents while others are nonagent…”
Schaller v. Marine Nat'l Bank of Neenah, 388 N.W.2d 645 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The Code's special rules relating to sales contract formation are "specifically designed to meet mercantile problems and apply only to sales of goods; they do not displace common-law rules in such matters as contracts for personal services or for the sale of real property.”
Special Souvenirs, Inc. v. Town of Wayne, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (E.D. Wis. 1999). · cites it 2× “, Zoning Ordinance, § 1.01 (1994). This provision neither applies to the conditional use permit process, nor does it constitute a sufficiently firm directive to Town officials.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 1.01(2) — 1 case
Town of Wayne v. Bishop, 565 N.W.2d 201 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
— Wis. Stat. § 1.01(2)(d) — 1 case
Special Souvenirs, Inc. v. Town of Wayne, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (E.D. Wis. 1999). “, Zoning Ordinance, § 1.01 (1994). This provision neither applies to the conditional use permit process, nor does it constitute a sufficiently firm directive to Town officials.”
— Wis. Stat. § 1.01(3) — 1 case
Schaller v. Marine Nat'l Bank of Neenah, 388 N.W.2d 645 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The Code's special rules relating to sales contract formation are "specifically designed to meet mercantile problems and apply only to sales of goods; they do not displace common-law rules in such matters as contracts for personal services or for the sale of real property.”
— Wis. Stat. § 1.01(K) — 1 case
1050 Lillian St, LLC v. Greenlock, LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 1.01(j) — 1 case
1050 Lillian St, LLC v. Greenlock, LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 1.01(jj) — 1 case
Solowicz v. Forward Geneva Nat'l, LLC, 2010 WI 20 (Wis. 2010). “02(1m), unit owner's association, or a nonprofit corporation created to own and operate portions of a planned community that may assess unit owners for the costs incurred in the performance of the association's obligations.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.