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

Wis. Stat. § 1.08 (2026)

State flag

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.081.08 State flag.
1.08(1)(1) The Wisconsin state flag consists of the following features:
Down
Up
1.08(1)(a)(a) Relative dimensions of 2 to 3, hoist to fly.
1.08(1)(b)(b) A background of royal blue cloth.
1.08(1)(c)(c) The state coat of arms, as described under s. 1.07, in material of appropriate colors, applied on each side in the center of the field, of such size that, if placed in a circle whose diameter is equal to 50 percent of the hoist, those portions farthest from the center of the field would meet, but not cross, the boundary of the circle.
1.08(1)(d)(d) The word “WISCONSIN” in white, capital, condensed Gothic letters, one-eighth of the hoist in height, centered above the coat of arms, midway between the uppermost part of the coat of arms and the top edge of the flag.
1.08(1)(e)(e) The year “1848” in white, condensed Gothic numbers, one-eighth of the hoist in height, centered below the coat of arms, midway between the lowermost part of the coat of arms and the bottom edge of the flag.
1.08(1)(f)(f) Optional trim on the edges consisting of yellow knotted fringe.
1.08(2)(2) The department of administration shall ensure that all official state flags that are manufactured on or after May 1, 1981 conform to the requirements of this section. State flags manufactured before May 1, 1981 may continue to be used as state flags.
1.08 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 286.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1972–2015 · leading case: Design Basics LLC v. J & V Roberts Investments, Inc., 130 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (E.D. Wis. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Design Basics LLC v. J & V Roberts Investments, Inc., 130 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (E.D. Wis. 2015). “(quoting Nimmer at § 1.08[C][1]). The central question of this case is how to apply these and related doctrines to separate the protectable from the unprotectable in architectural works.”
Capitol Indem. Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 357 F. Supp. 399 (W.D. Wis. 1972). “Under Condition D of the policy, having obtained a final judgment against the insured (Roblee-Johnson & Company), Capitol is authorized to proceed directly against S.”
O'CONNOR v. Cindy Gerke & Assocs., Inc., 300 F. Supp. 2d 759 (W.D. Wis. 2002). “at 349-50, 111 S.Ct. 1282 . Defendant argues that “the idea for the [Vision-Gerke show] originated with Sandom” and, thus, is not original.”
Landsted Homes, Inc. v. Sherman, 305 F. Supp. 2d 976 (W.D. Wis. 2002). “Thus, defendant Sherman contends, the Liberty plans lack originality and are not copyrightable.”
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.