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

Wis. Stat. § 17.13 (2026)

Removal of village, town, town sanitary district, school district, and technical college officers

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
17.1317.13 Removal of village, town, town sanitary district, school district, and technical college officers. Officers of towns, town sanitary districts, villages, school districts, and technical college districts may be removed as follows:
17.13(1)(1) Appointive officers. Except as provided in s. 60.30 (1e) (c) and (f), any appointive village, town, town sanitary district, school district and technical college district officer, by the officer or body that appointed him or her, at pleasure. Removal of any such officer by a body shall be by a majority vote of all the members thereof.
17.13(2)(2) Elective village officers. Any elective village officer by a majority vote of all the members of the village board, because of continued physical inability to perform the duties of office or gross neglect of duty.
17.13(2m)(2m) Elective town officers. Any elective town officer by a majority vote of all the members of the town board, because of continued physical inability to perform the duties of office or gross neglect of duty.
17.13(3)(3) All officers. Any village, town, town sanitary district, school district or technical college district officer, elective or appointive, including those embraced within subs. (1), (2), and (2m), by the judge of the circuit court of the circuit wherein the village, town, town sanitary district, school district or technical college district is situated, for cause.
17.13 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 154; 1977 c. 449; 1983 a. 532; 1993 a. 399; 1995 a. 34, 225; 1999 a. 9; 2007 a. 20; 2019 a. 140.
17.13 AnnotationIf a statute provides that a public officer, including VTAE [technical college] board members, serves at pleasure but is appointed for a term, the officer may be summarily dismissed during the term. 62 Atty. Gen. 97.
17.13 AnnotationA town board was restrained from discharging its police chief until the issue of impermissible consideration of the chief’s political activities was resolved. Kuhlmann v. Bloomfield Township, 521 F. Supp. 1242 (1981).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1947–2024 · leading case: Barland v. Eau Claire Cnty., 575 N.W.2d 691 (Wis. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barland v. Eau Claire Cnty., 575 N.W.2d 691 (Wis. 1998). · cites it 4× “08 (2) (power to appoint county condemnation officers); Wis. Stat. § 17.13 (3) (power to remove local government officers).”
State Ex Rel. Lawton v. Town of Barton, 2005 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “0102 of the Town's zoning ordinances and the removal provisions in Wis. Stat. § 17.13 (1). The court explained that section 8.”
Kuhlmann v. Bloomfield Twp., 521 F. Supp. 1242 (E.D. Wis. 1981). · cites it 4× “Wis.Stat. § 17.13(1). The Supreme Court has addressed this argument directly.”
Blado v. Knoll, 90 N.W.2d 176 (Wis. 1958). · cites it 3× “Both parties agree that we must look first at sec. 17.13, Stats., providing: “Officers of .”
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). · cites it 60× “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
Jeffrey Becker v. Dane Cnty., 2022 WI 63 (Wis. 2022). · cites it 2× “12(c); see also Wis. Stat. § 17.13 (1) (removal of village and town appointive officers).”
Elter v. Great Lakes Higher Educ. Corp. (In Re Elter), 95 B.R. 618 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1989). “Moore’s Manual, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 17.13 at pp. 17-64 to 67. Based upon the agreement as to facts and the briefs of the parties, the court concludes that the defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law and will dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.”
Wellnitz v. Bd. of Police & Fire Commissioners, 444 N.W.2d 412 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “, governs the removal of city officers; sec. 17.13, Stats., governs the removal of village, town, town sanitary district, school district, and vocational officers; sec.”
Grob v. Nelson, 98 N.W.2d 457 (Wis. 1959). “(2d) 176 , the officer to be removed was an officer of a school district and the proceedings were brought, as here, under sec. 17.13, Stats. We held that removal of an officer by a judge was an executive, not a *13 judicial function.”
Jeffrey Becker v. Dane Cnty., 2022 WI 63 (Wis. 2022). · cites it 2× “12(c); see also Wis. Stat. § 17.13 (1) (removal of village and town appointive officers).”
State Ex Rel. Prahlow v. City of Milwaukee, 30 N.W.2d 260 (Wis. 1947). “Failure of the municipal clerk to comply with the provisions of this section shall render that officer and his bondsmen liable for the amount of the tuition statements rendered to him by the school clerks and shall constitute cause for removal from office for failure to perform…”
Laura Sutton v. Barron Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “, ORDINANCES § 17.13(3)(b)2. (May 2023), https://www.co.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(1) — 2 cases
Kuhlmann v. Bloomfield Twp., 521 F. Supp. 1242 (E.D. Wis. 1981). “Wis.Stat. § 17.13(1). The Supreme Court has addressed this argument directly.”
State Ex Rel. Lawton v. Town of Barton, 2005 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “0102 of the Town's zoning ordinances and the removal provisions in Wis. Stat. § 17.13 (1). The court explained that section 8.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(3)(b) — 1 case
Laura Sutton v. Barron Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “, ORDINANCES § 17.13(3)(b)2. (May 2023), https://www.co.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(b)(9) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(c) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(c)(10)(b) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(c)(11) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(c)(2) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(c)(4)(c) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(c)(6) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(c)(6)(a) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(c)(6)(j) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(c)(7) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(c)(l) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(e) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(e)(6) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(e)(6)(b) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
— Wis. Stat. § 17.13(6)(e)(l) — 1 case
Green Valley Inv. LLC v. Cnty. of Winnebago, 790 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “It asserts that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the following way?: 1) § 17.13 is facially unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad; 2) together §§ 17.”
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.