Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 12.02 (2026)
Construction
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1991–2009 · leading case: Sauk Cnty. v. Gumz, 2003 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
Sauk Cnty. v. Gumz, 2003 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “We conclude that, based on the undisputed facts, the following provisions of the ordinance do not meet the requirement that they be narrowly tailored to achieve a significant government interest and are therefore invalid under the First Amendment: the sixty-day advance filing…”
Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, 2006 WI 107 (Wis. 2006). “Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 12.02[5], 865 (2005 ed.). Moreover, without a valid compact, state laws have no regulatory power over gaming on Tribal land, and states have no authority to police Tribal casinos.”
Cnty. of La Crosse v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 513 N.W.2d 579 (Wis. 1994). “The agreement does not contain any provision explicitly prohibiting the employer from discharging an employe without proper cause nor any provision explicitly governing the discharge of an employe because of a work-related injury.”
McNeal v. MacHt, 763 F. Supp. 1458 (E.D. Wis. 1991). “See Local Rule 12, Section 12.02 (governing pro se prisoner claims).”
City of Milwaukee Post No. 2874 Vets. of Foreign Wars of the United States v. Redevelopment Auth. of Milwaukee, 2009 WI 84 (Wis. 2009). “See also 4 Nichols, supra note 3, § 12.02[1] ("The term 'fair market value' means the amount of money which a purchaser willing, but not obliged, to buy the property would pay to an owner willing, but not obliged, to sell it, taking into consideration all uses for which the land…”
Cnty. of La Crosse v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 497 N.W.2d 455 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “Section 12.02 provides: In the event of any disagreement concerning the meaning or application of any provision of this Agreement, such disagreement shall be resolved in the manner hereinafter set forth.”
POST NO. 2874 VFW. v. Redevelopment Auth., 2009 WI 84 (Wis. 2009). “02[1] ("The term `fair market value' means the amount of money which a purchaser willing, but not obliged, to buy the property would pay to an owner willing, but not obliged, to sell it, taking into consideration all uses for which the land was suited and might be applied.”
— Wis. Stat. § 12.02(1) — 1 case
Sauk Cnty. v. Gumz, 2003 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “We conclude that, based on the undisputed facts, the following provisions of the ordinance do not meet the requirement that they be narrowly tailored to achieve a significant government interest and are therefore invalid under the First Amendment: the sixty-day advance filing…”
— Wis. Stat. § 12.02(3) — 1 case
Sauk Cnty. v. Gumz, 2003 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “We conclude that, based on the undisputed facts, the following provisions of the ordinance do not meet the requirement that they be narrowly tailored to achieve a significant government interest and are therefore invalid under the First Amendment: the sixty-day advance filing…”
— Wis. Stat. § 12.02(7) — 1 case
Sauk Cnty. v. Gumz, 2003 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “We conclude that, based on the undisputed facts, the following provisions of the ordinance do not meet the requirement that they be narrowly tailored to achieve a significant government interest and are therefore invalid under the First Amendment: the sixty-day advance filing…”
— Wis. Stat. § 12.02(8)(a) — 1 case
Sauk Cnty. v. Gumz, 2003 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “We conclude that, based on the undisputed facts, the following provisions of the ordinance do not meet the requirement that they be narrowly tailored to achieve a significant government interest and are therefore invalid under the First Amendment: the sixty-day advance filing…”
— Wis. Stat. § 12.02(8)(b) — 1 case
Sauk Cnty. v. Gumz, 2003 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “We conclude that, based on the undisputed facts, the following provisions of the ordinance do not meet the requirement that they be narrowly tailored to achieve a significant government interest and are therefore invalid under the First Amendment: the sixty-day advance filing…”
— Wis. Stat. § 12.02(8)(c) — 1 case
Sauk Cnty. v. Gumz, 2003 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “We conclude that, based on the undisputed facts, the following provisions of the ordinance do not meet the requirement that they be narrowly tailored to achieve a significant government interest and are therefore invalid under the First Amendment: the sixty-day advance filing…”
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.