Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 19 — GENERAL DUTIES OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 19.70 (2026)

Rights of data subject to challenge; authority corrections

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
19.7019.70 Rights of data subject to challenge; authority corrections.
19.70(1)(1) Except as provided under sub. (2), an individual or person authorized by the individual may challenge the accuracy of a record containing personally identifiable information pertaining to the individual that is maintained by an authority if the individual is authorized to inspect the record under s. 19.35 (1) (a) or (am) and the individual notifies the authority, in writing, of the challenge. After receiving the notice, the authority shall do one of the following:
19.70(1)(a)(a) Concur with the challenge and correct the information.
19.70(1)(b)(b) Deny the challenge, notify the individual or person authorized by the individual of the denial and allow the individual or person authorized by the individual to file a concise statement setting forth the reasons for the individual’s disagreement with the disputed portion of the record. A state authority that denies a challenge shall also notify the individual or person authorized by the individual of the reasons for the denial.
19.70(2)(2) This section does not apply to any of the following records:
19.70(2)(a)(a) Any record transferred to an archival depository under s. 16.61 (13).
Down
Up
19.70(2)(b)(b) Any record pertaining to an individual if a specific state statute or federal law governs challenges to the accuracy of the record.
19.70 HistoryHistory: 1991 a. 269 ss. 27d, 27e, 35am, 37am, 39am; 2013 a. 171 s. 16; Stats. 2013 s. 19.70.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · leading case: Dennis A. Teague v. Brad D. Schimel, 2017 WI 56 (Wis. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dennis A. Teague v. Brad D. Schimel, 2017 WI 56 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 291× “1 They also say the DOJ refuses to correct its records pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.70 (2015–16),2 which results in the deprivation of their constitutionally-protected due process rights, as well as their right to the equal protection of the laws.”
Teague v. Van Hollen, 2016 WI App 20 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 62× “For reasons explained more fully below, we affirm the following circuit court decisions: to dismiss Teague's claim under the Wisconsin public records law; to dismiss Teague's request for an order, under the authority of Wis. Stat. § 19.70 (2013-14), requiring DOJ to in some…”
Desiree Brown v. Wisconsin Dep't of Just. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted. 2 For the first time in her reply brief, Brown argues that the DOJ did not have the authority to deny her criminal history challenge and correct her record; instead, she argues that the…”
Wis. Stat. § 19.70(1): 1 case
Teague v. Van Hollen, 2016 WI App 20 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “For reasons explained more fully below, we affirm the following circuit court decisions: to dismiss Teague's claim under the Wisconsin public records law; to dismiss Teague's request for an order, under the authority of Wis. Stat. § 19.70 (2013-14), requiring DOJ to in some…”
Wis. Stat. § 19.70(1)(a): 1 case
Dennis A. Teague v. Brad D. Schimel, 2017 WI 56 (Wis. 2017). “1 They also say the DOJ refuses to correct its records pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.70 (2015–16),2 which results in the deprivation of their constitutionally-protected due process rights, as well as their right to the equal protection of the laws.”
Wis. Stat. § 19.70(1)(b): 1 case
Dennis A. Teague v. Brad D. Schimel, 2017 WI 56 (Wis. 2017). “1 They also say the DOJ refuses to correct its records pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.70 (2015–16),2 which results in the deprivation of their constitutionally-protected due process rights, as well as their right to the equal protection of the laws.”
Wis. Stat. § 19.70(l)(a): 2 cases
Dennis A. Teague v. Brad D. Schimel, 2017 WI 56 (Wis. 2017). “1 They also say the DOJ refuses to correct its records pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.70 (2015–16),2 which results in the deprivation of their constitutionally-protected due process rights, as well as their right to the equal protection of the laws.”
Teague v. Van Hollen, 2016 WI App 20 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “For reasons explained more fully below, we affirm the following circuit court decisions: to dismiss Teague's claim under the Wisconsin public records law; to dismiss Teague's request for an order, under the authority of Wis. Stat. § 19.70 (2013-14), requiring DOJ to in some…”
Wis. Stat. § 19.70(l)(b): 2 cases
Dennis A. Teague v. Brad D. Schimel, 2017 WI 56 (Wis. 2017). “1 They also say the DOJ refuses to correct its records pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.70 (2015–16),2 which results in the deprivation of their constitutionally-protected due process rights, as well as their right to the equal protection of the laws.”
Teague v. Van Hollen, 2016 WI App 20 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “For reasons explained more fully below, we affirm the following circuit court decisions: to dismiss Teague's claim under the Wisconsin public records law; to dismiss Teague's request for an order, under the authority of Wis. Stat. § 19.70 (2013-14), requiring DOJ to in some…”
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.