Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 125.66 (2026)
Sale without license; failure to obtain permit; penalties
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
125.66(1)(1) No person may sell, or possess with intent to sell, intoxicating liquor unless that person holds the appropriate license or permit. Whoever violates this subsection may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 9 months or both.
125.66(2)(2) The issuance of any current permit or special tax stamp of the federal government to any person, authorizing or permitting the person to sell intoxicating liquor, shall be prima facie evidence in any prosecution for violation of this section that the person was engaged in selling intoxicating liquor.
125.66(3)(3) Any person manufacturing or rectifying intoxicating liquor without holding appropriate permits under this chapter, or any person who sells such liquor, is guilty of a Class F felony.
125.66(4)(4) Notwithstanding sub. (1) and s. 125.04 (1), a “Class A” licensee who sells intoxicating liquor to a “Class B” licensee for resale may be fined not more than $100.
125.66 AnnotationA license never should have been issued when a notice of application had not been published as required under s. 125.04 (3) (g), and a license issued without publication is void under s. 125.04 (2). Selling liquor under a void license constitutes a violation of sub. (1). Under s. 125.12, a renewal licensee, if refused, is guaranteed a right to be heard by the municipality, and the municipality must show cause for refusal, but a new licensee, if refused, has no such guarantee. When an original license is void, the applicant is a new licensee. Williams v. City of Lake Geneva, 2002 WI App 95, 253 Wis. 2d 618, 643 N.W.2d 864, 01-1733.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Williams v. City of Lake Geneva, 2002 WI App 95 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
Williams v. City of Lake Geneva, 2002 WI App 95 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “On or about June 26, 2000, Williams served his Verified Complaint upon the City claiming that the Condoses violated Wis. Stat. § 125.66 by selling and possessing with intent to sell intoxicating liquor without holding an appropriate license or permit.”
State v. Eastman, 435 N.W.2d 278 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “The state appeals an order dismissing a criminal complaint that charged Eastman with selling and possessing intoxicating liquors with the intent to sell without a license contrary to sec. 125.66(1), Stats. 1 *256 The state alleges that as the true owner of a bar, Eastman was…”
State v. Kimberly D. Rowe (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 125.66(1).2 Rowe argues that the evidence the State presented at her trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she possessed intoxicating liquor.”
— Wis. Stat. § 125.66(1) — 3 cases
Williams v. City of Lake Geneva, 2002 WI App 95 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “On or about June 26, 2000, Williams served his Verified Complaint upon the City claiming that the Condoses violated Wis. Stat. § 125.66 by selling and possessing with intent to sell intoxicating liquor without holding an appropriate license or permit.”
State v. Eastman, 435 N.W.2d 278 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “The state appeals an order dismissing a criminal complaint that charged Eastman with selling and possessing intoxicating liquors with the intent to sell without a license contrary to sec. 125.66(1), Stats. 1 *256 The state alleges that as the true owner of a bar, Eastman was…”
State v. Kimberly D. Rowe (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 125.66(1).2 Rowe argues that the evidence the State presented at her trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she possessed intoxicating liquor.”
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.