Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 19.96 (2026)
Penalty
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
19.9619.96 Penalty. Any member of a governmental body who knowingly attends a meeting of such body held in violation of this subchapter, or who, in his or her official capacity, otherwise violates this subchapter by some act or omission shall forfeit without reimbursement not less than $25 nor more than $300 for each such violation. No member of a governmental body is liable under this subchapter on account of his or her attendance at a meeting held in violation of this subchapter if he or she makes or votes in favor of a motion to prevent the violation from occurring, or if, before the violation occurs, his or her votes on all relevant motions were inconsistent with all those circumstances which cause the violation.
19.96 AnnotationThe state need not prove specific intent to violate the open meetings law. State v. Swanson, 92 Wis. 2d 310, 284 N.W.2d 655 (1979). See also State ex rel. Wied v. Wheeler, 2025 WI App 16, 415 Wis. 2d 542, 19 N.W.3d 686, 22-1953.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Buswell v. Tomah Area Sch. Dist., 2007 WI 71 (Wis. 2007).
State Ex Rel. Buswell v. Tomah Area Sch. Dist., 2007 WI 71 (Wis. 2007). “Section 19.96 provides for forfeitures by "[a]ny member of a governmental body who knowingly attends a meeting of such body held in violation" of the open meetings law.”
State Ex Rel. Hodge v. Town of Turtle Lake, 508 N.W.2d 603 (Wis. 1993). “Therefore, their actions do not warrant the penalty under sec. 19.96, Stats. By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions.”
State v. Swanson, 284 N.W.2d 655 (Wis. 1979). “” *318 We conclude the facts do not support the defendant’s assertion that the September 23 meeting with town of Medary residents was an exempt conference. The defendant argues the trial court denied him a jury trial on the issue of intent when summary judgment was granted to…”
Fabyan v. Achtenhagen, 2002 WI App 214 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “Wis. Stat. § 19.96 . When a forfeiture is imposed by statute, it may be recovered in a civil action unless the act is punishable by a fine or imprisonment, Wis.”
State Ex Rel. Lawton v. Town of Barton, 2005 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “See Wis. Stat. § 19.96 (providing that "[a]ny member of a governmental body who knowingly attends a meeting of such body held in violation of this subchapter, or who, in his or her official capacity, otherwise violates this subchapter by some act or omission shall forfeit…”
State Ex Rel. Siu Wing Leung v. City of Lake Geneva, 2003 WI App 129 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “The complaint requested judgment: a) For monetary penalties against the Defendants Ahl-gren and Saia pursuant to § 19.96, Wis. Stats. b) For a declaratory judgment determining and adjudicating the action of the Lake Geneva City Council on June 14, 1999, denying the proposed…”
Crawford v. City of Ashland, 396 N.W.2d 781 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The attorney general was correct inasmuch as sec. 19.96, Stats., forbids the reimbursement of legal fees incurred by an official found to be violating the open meeting law because the statute specifically provides that the forfeiture imposed shall be without reimbursement.”
Leanne Wied v. Scott Wheeler (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 19.96, Wheeler and Lambert assert they “are only personally accountable for a violation of the [o]pen [m]eetings [l]aw if they knowingly attended a meeting held in violation of such law or otherwise knowingly committed a violation by any other act or omission.”
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.