Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 138 — MONEY AND RATES OF INTEREST
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 138.01 (2026)

Money

✓ laws through the 2025-26 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
138.01138.01 Money. The money of account of this state shall be the dollar, cent and mill; and all accounts in public offices, and other public accounts, and, except as provided in ss. 806.30 to 806.44, all proceedings in courts shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation.
138.01 HistoryHistory: 1991 a. 236.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1978–1992 · leading case: State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 147 (Wis. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 147 (Wis. 1978). “” 9 It is true, as the defendant asserts, that in the Braves Case the court also said: “[T]he first sentence of sec. 138.01(1), Stats., still embraces other types of restraint of trade not specifically enumerated or described.”
Thompson v. Threshermen's Mut. Ins. Co., 493 N.W.2d 734 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “Because sec. 138.01, Stats., commands that "[t]he money of account of this state shall be the dollar, cent and mill," lottery tickets and coupons cannot be considered money.”
Indep. Milk Producers Co-Op v. Stoffel, 298 N.W.2d 128 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “The literal language of both Section 1 of the Sherman Act and sec. 138.01(1), Stats., declares every conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce to be illegal.”
Wisconsin Ass'n of Nursing Homes v. Journal Co., 285 N.W.2d 891 (Wis. 1979). · cites it 2× “Section 138.01, Stats. Plaintiffs reaffirmed this in their brief: “Again, we do not allege an effective monopoly of the newspaper field in Milwaukee to establish an action for damages, based upon such monopoly, or combination in restraint of trade.”
Wis. Stat. § 138.01(1): 2 cases
State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 147 (Wis. 1978). “” 9 It is true, as the defendant asserts, that in the Braves Case the court also said: “[T]he first sentence of sec. 138.01(1), Stats., still embraces other types of restraint of trade not specifically enumerated or described.”
Indep. Milk Producers Co-Op v. Stoffel, 298 N.W.2d 128 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “The literal language of both Section 1 of the Sherman Act and sec. 138.01(1), Stats., declares every conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce to be illegal.”
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.