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

Wis. Stat. § 1.02 (2026)

United States sites and buildings

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.021.02 United States sites and buildings. Subject to the conditions mentioned in s. 1.03 the legislature consents to the acquisitions heretofore effected and hereafter to be effected by the United States, by gift, purchase or condemnation proceedings, of the title to places or tracts of land within the state; and, subject to said conditions, the state grants, cedes and confirms to the United States exclusive jurisdiction over all such places and tracts. Such acquisitions are limited to the following purposes:
1.02(1)(1) To sites for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, custom houses, courthouses, post offices, or other public buildings or for any purpose whatsoever contemplated by the 17th clause of section 8 of article one of the United States constitution.
1.02(2)(2) To all land now or hereafter included within the boundaries of Fort McCoy in townships 17, 18 and 19 north, ranges 2 and 3 west, near Sparta, in Monroe County, to be used for military purposes as a target and maneuvering range and such other purposes as the department of the army deems necessary and proper.
1.02(3)(3) To erect thereon dams, abutments, locks, lockkeepers’ dwellings, chutes, or other structures necessary or desirable in improving the navigation of the rivers or other waters within and on the borders of this state.
1.02(4)(4) To the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of section 6, township 19 north, range 2 west of the fourth principal meridian to be used for military purposes as a target and maneuvering range and such other purposes as the department of the army deems necessary and proper.
1.02 HistoryHistory: 1985 a. 135.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1941–2022 · leading case: Courtney v. Berryhill, 385 F. Supp. 3d 761 (W.D. Wis. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Courtney v. Berryhill, 385 F. Supp. 3d 761 (W.D. Wis. 2018). · cites it 2× “1, § 1.02. He argues that the ALJ erred when she relied on the outdated opinions of the state agency medical consultants.”
Pertzsch v. Upper Oconomowoc Lake Ass'n, 2001 WI App 232 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “¶ 20. The public policy favoring the free and unrestricted use of real property was dominant in the United States throughout the nineteenth century; even governments imposed few land use restrictions.”
Gable v. Universal Acceptance Corp., 338 F. Supp. 3d 943 (E.D. Wis. 2018). “§ 1.02. Regardless of the language UAC included in its contract with RPI, it was UAC that directed RPI to repossess Gable's car, and it is UAC that falls within the definition of merchant contained in the WCA.”
Sea View Estates Beach Club, Inc. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 588 N.W.2d 667 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “Sea View next argues that a pier permit proceeding is not the appropriate place for addressing a zoning violation.”
Miswald v. Waukesha Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 550 N.W.2d 434 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “These requirements serve the purpose of the ordinance which is to promote the health, safety, convenience and environmental integrity of the area.”
Town of Wayne v. Bishop, 565 N.W.2d 201 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “See Town of Wayne, Wis, Plumbing Code § 1.02(2). After the defendants failed to cure these violations or appeal them to the local zoning agencies, the Town initiated suit in September 1993, seeking injunc-tive relief and civil forfeitures.”
Brihn v. Astrue, 582 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wis. 2008). · cites it 2× “I would ask that while making your report, you refer to section 1.02, as highlighted. If you feel that Suzanne Brihn meets this listing, please so state in your report.”
State v. Shepard, 300 N.W. 905 (Wis. 1941). · cites it 2× “” Sec. 1.02, Stats., originally enacted in 1867, declares that— “Subject to the conditions mentioned in section 1.”
Williams v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 4 (W.D. Wis. 1956). · cites it 4× “ding and its maintenance; that the Wisconsin Safe Place Statute and the Rules and Orders of the Wisconsin Industrial Commission relating to outside stairways of this building are not applicable against the United States, in the maintenance and operation of this Post Office and…”
N. Elec., Inc. v. Local Union 158, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 387 F. Supp. 2d 916 (E.D. Wis. 2005). · cites it 5× “CBA § 1.02(C). The CBA was negotiated on Northern Electric’s behalf by the Northeastern Division of the Wisconsin Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA), a multi-employer organization that negotiates and administers labor agreements on behalf of its…”
Stephan B. Nordstrom v. Steven G. Kane, 2021 WI App 71 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “, LAND DIVISION ORDINANCE § 1.02. One of the stated goals of the ordinance is to “[e]nsure a system for review of proposed site condominiums that is identical to the review procedures for land divisions.”
Kimberly-Clark, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 900 F. Supp. 2d 919 (E.D. Wis. 2012). · cites it 3× “Under the printed matter doctrine, printed matter on its own is not considered “manufacture” and thus does not fit within the statutory classes of patented subject matter.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 1.02(2) — 1 case
Town of Wayne v. Bishop, 565 N.W.2d 201 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “See Town of Wayne, Wis, Plumbing Code § 1.02(2). After the defendants failed to cure these violations or appeal them to the local zoning agencies, the Town initiated suit in September 1993, seeking injunc-tive relief and civil forfeitures.”
— Wis. Stat. § 1.02(C) — 1 case
N. Elec., Inc. v. Local Union 158, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 387 F. Supp. 2d 916 (E.D. Wis. 2005). “CBA § 1.02(C). The CBA was negotiated on Northern Electric’s behalf by the Northeastern Division of the Wisconsin Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA), a multi-employer organization that negotiates and administers labor agreements on behalf of its…”
— Wis. Stat. § 1.02(D) — 1 case
N. Elec., Inc. v. Local Union 158, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 387 F. Supp. 2d 916 (E.D. Wis. 2005). “CBA § 1.02(C). The CBA was negotiated on Northern Electric’s behalf by the Northeastern Division of the Wisconsin Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA), a multi-employer organization that negotiates and administers labor agreements on behalf of its…”
— Wis. Stat. § 1.02(E) — 1 case
N. Elec., Inc. v. Local Union 158, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 387 F. Supp. 2d 916 (E.D. Wis. 2005). “CBA § 1.02(C). The CBA was negotiated on Northern Electric’s behalf by the Northeastern Division of the Wisconsin Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA), a multi-employer organization that negotiates and administers labor agreements on behalf of its…”
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.