Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 1.04 (2026)
United States sites exempt from taxation
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
1.041.04 United States sites exempt from taxation. Upon full compliance by the United States with ss. 1.02 and 1.03, relating to the acquisition of any place or tract within the state the governor shall execute in duplicate, under the great seal, a certificate of such consent given and of such compliance with ss. 1.02 and 1.03, one of which shall be delivered to such officer of the United States and the other filed with the secretary of state. Such certificate shall be sufficient evidence of such consent of the legislature and of such compliance with the conditions specified. All such places and tracts after such acquisition and while owned by the United States, shall be and remain exempt from all taxation and assessment by authority of the state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2021 · leading case: Town of Rhine v. Bizzell, 2008 WI 76 (Wis. 2008).
Town of Rhine v. Bizzell, 2008 WI 76 (Wis. 2008). “Mandelker, Land Use Law § 1.04, at 1-4 (5th ed.2003). The municipality is generally divided into different districts, such as residential, commercial, and industrial.”
Carney-Hayes Ex Rel. McCormack v. Nw. Wisconsin Home Care, Inc., 2005 WI 118 (Wis. 2005). “Radnor, Cross-Examining Doctors: A Practical Guide § 1.04, at 8-9 (1999). [8] "[I]t is a well-settled rule of law that employee-experts who acquire information for trial solely because they were actors or viewers with respect to the occurrences forming the subject matter of the…”
Zwiefelhofer v. Town of Cooks Valley, 2012 WI 7 (Wis. 2012). “Mandelker, Land Use Law § 1.04 (5th ed. 2003)). See also Town of Clearfield v.”
State v. Stepniewski, 314 N.W.2d 98 (Wis. 1982). “The method used is not to abrogate such liability but to provide that when conviction rests upon that basis the grade of the offense is reduced to a violation, which is not a "crime" and under Sections 1.04(5) and 6.02 may result in no other sentence than a fine or fine and…”
Wisconsin Med. Soc'y, Inc. v. Morgan, 2010 WI 94 (Wis. 2010). “" Nossaman & Wyatt, 1 Trust Administration & Taxation § 1.04 at 1-13 (1992) (quoting West Jersey Title & Guar.”
Vill. of Elm Grove v. Py, 724 F. Supp. 612 (E.D. Wis. 1989). “§ 1.04(a)] that the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan of the proposed structure for which a building permit was refused would, when erected, be so at variance with either or so similar to the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan of structures already…”
Vance, Donya v. Berryhill, Nancy (W.D. Wis. 2019). “1, § 1.04. Vance argues that the ALJ engaged in a “perfunctory analysis” of Listing 1.”
Beck v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (E.D. Wis. 2020). “1, § 1.04(A). As indicated above, the ALJ specifically considered Listing 1.”
Jandt v. Saul (E.D. Wis. 2019). “At Step Three, the ALJ found that Jandt’s “impairments do not meet or equal the requirements of sections 1.04 (spine disorders), 3.02 (chronic pulmonary insufficiency), 4.”
Figliuzzi v. Carcajou Shooting Club, 502 N.W.2d 876 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “" See also Bruce & Ely, The LAW OF EASEMENTS AND Licenses IN land § 1.04[1], at 1-16 and n.2 (1988): "Because profits necessarily include the right to enter the servient tenement, they are governed by the same general legal principles that apply to easements.”
State v. Corey Benson (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “We would additionally note that, because Attorney Hicks was certified to represent Benson on the child abuse charges and was already doing so, we have no reason to believe that the public defender would have done anything with the “new” intentional homicide case other than…”
Culver v. Kijakazi (E.D. Wis. 2021). “) The ALJ considered listing sections 1.04, 2.02, 2.03, 2.04, 12.04, 12.”
— Wis. Stat. § 1.04(15) — 1 case
State v. Corey Benson (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “We would additionally note that, because Attorney Hicks was certified to represent Benson on the child abuse charges and was already doing so, we have no reason to believe that the public defender would have done anything with the “new” intentional homicide case other than…”
— Wis. Stat. § 1.04(5) — 1 case
State v. Stepniewski, 314 N.W.2d 98 (Wis. 1982). “The method used is not to abrogate such liability but to provide that when conviction rests upon that basis the grade of the offense is reduced to a violation, which is not a "crime" and under Sections 1.04(5) and 6.02 may result in no other sentence than a fine or fine and…”
— Wis. Stat. § 1.04(A) — 2 cases
Beck v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (E.D. Wis. 2020). “1, § 1.04(A). As indicated above, the ALJ specifically considered Listing 1.”
Swanson, Christopher v. Saul, Andrew (W.D. Wis. 2020).
— Wis. Stat. § 1.04(C) — 1 case
Buss, Agnes v. Berryhill, Nancy (W.D. Wis. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 1.04(a) — 1 case
Vill. of Elm Grove v. Py, 724 F. Supp. 612 (E.D. Wis. 1989). “§ 1.04(a)] that the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan of the proposed structure for which a building permit was refused would, when erected, be so at variance with either or so similar to the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan of structures already…”
— Wis. Stat. § 1.04(e) — 1 case
Vill. of Elm Grove v. Py, 724 F. Supp. 612 (E.D. Wis. 1989). “§ 1.04(a)] that the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan of the proposed structure for which a building permit was refused would, when erected, be so at variance with either or so similar to the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan of structures already…”
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.