Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 17 — RESIGNATIONS, VACANCIES, AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 17.05 (2026)

Governor may declare vacancies

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
17.0517.05 Governor may declare vacancies. The governor may declare vacant the office of any state officer required by law to execute an official bond whenever a judgment is obtained against such officer for a breach of the conditions of such bond.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Lipscomb v. Abele, 918 N.W.2d 434 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lipscomb v. Abele, 918 N.W.2d 434 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “§ 17.05(2)(c)(4), (5), (7). We agree with the Executive that, unlike the reallocation veto, a reclassification veto effectively directs what duties may or must be accomplished by employees or officers or how they may or must perform those duties.”
Jones Intercable v. City of Stevens Point, Wis., 729 F. Supp. 642 (W.D. Wis. 1990). “” § 17.05(9). In addition, § 17.09(7) states the Grantee, by the acceptance of any franchise awarded hereunder, agrees that the matters contained in the Grantee’s application for franchise and as stated in oral presentation, except as inconsistent with the FCC Rules and…”
Quintez Cephus v. Rebecca Blank, Lauren Hasselbacher & Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin Sys. (W.D. Wis. 2025). “UWS § 17.05. In 2017, Hasselbacher was hired for this role at UW-Madison, having previously worked as an advocate for women experiencing domestic and sexual violence.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.05(2)(c)(4) — 1 case
Lipscomb v. Abele, 918 N.W.2d 434 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 17.05(2)(c)(4), (5), (7). We agree with the Executive that, unlike the reallocation veto, a reclassification veto effectively directs what duties may or must be accomplished by employees or officers or how they may or must perform those duties.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.05(2)(c)(7) — 1 case
Lipscomb v. Abele, 918 N.W.2d 434 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 17.05(2)(c)(4), (5), (7). We agree with the Executive that, unlike the reallocation veto, a reclassification veto effectively directs what duties may or must be accomplished by employees or officers or how they may or must perform those duties.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.05(9) — 1 case
Jones Intercable v. City of Stevens Point, Wis., 729 F. Supp. 642 (W.D. Wis. 1990). “” § 17.05(9). In addition, § 17.09(7) states the Grantee, by the acceptance of any franchise awarded hereunder, agrees that the matters contained in the Grantee’s application for franchise and as stated in oral presentation, except as inconsistent with the FCC Rules and…”
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.