Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (2026)
Enforcement
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
19.97(1)(1) This subchapter shall be enforced in the name and on behalf of the state by the attorney general or, upon the verified complaint of any person, by the district attorney of any county wherein a violation may occur. In actions brought by the attorney general, the court shall award any forfeiture recovered together with reasonable costs to the state; and in actions brought by the district attorney, the court shall award any forfeiture recovered together with reasonable costs to the county.
19.97(2)(2) In addition and supplementary to the remedy provided in s. 19.96, the attorney general or the district attorney may commence an action, separately or in conjunction with an action brought under s. 19.96, to obtain such other legal or equitable relief, including but not limited to mandamus, injunction or declaratory judgment, as may be appropriate under the circumstances.
19.97(3)(3) Any action taken at a meeting of a governmental body held in violation of this subchapter is voidable, upon action brought by the attorney general or the district attorney of the county wherein the violation occurred. However, any judgment declaring such action void shall not be entered unless the court finds, under the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in the enforcement of this subchapter outweighs any public interest which there may be in sustaining the validity of the action taken.
19.97(4)(4) If the district attorney refuses or otherwise fails to commence an action to enforce this subchapter within 20 days after receiving a verified complaint, the person making such complaint may bring an action under subs. (1) to (3) on his or her relation in the name, and on behalf, of the state. In such actions, the court may award actual and necessary costs of prosecution, including reasonable attorney fees to the relator if he or she prevails, but any forfeiture recovered shall be paid to the state.
19.97 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1981: Reference in sub. (2) to a “writ” of mandamus has been removed because that remedy is now available in an ordinary action. See s. 781.01, stats., and the note thereto. [Bill 613-A]
19.97 AnnotationAwards of attorney fees are to be at a rate applicable to private attorneys. A court may review the reasonableness of the hours and hourly rate charged, including the rates for similar services in the area, and may in addition consider the peculiar facts of the case and the responsible party’s ability to pay. State ex rel. Hodge v. Town of Turtle Lake, 190 Wis. 2d 181, 526 N.W.2d 784 (Ct. App. 1994).
19.97 AnnotationActions brought under the open meetings and open records laws are exempt from the notice provisions of s. 893.80. State ex rel. Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrange, 200 Wis. 2d 585, 547 N.W.2d 587 (1996), 94-2809.
19.97 AnnotationFailure to bring an action under this section on behalf of the state is fatal and deprives the court of competency to proceed. Fabyan v. Achtenhagen, 2002 WI App 214, 257 Wis. 2d 310, 652 N.W.2d 649, 01-3298.
19.97 AnnotationComplaints under the open meetings law are not brought in the individual capacity of the plaintiff but on behalf of the state, subject to the two-year statute of limitations under s. 893.93 (2). State ex rel. Leung v. City of Lake Geneva, 2003 WI App 129, 265 Wis. 2d 674, 666 N.W.2d 104, 02-2747.
19.97 AnnotationWhen a town board’s action was voided by the court due to lack of statutory authority, an action for enforcement under sub. (4) by an individual as a private attorney general on behalf of the state against individual board members for a violation of the open meetings law that would subject the individual board members to civil forfeitures was not rendered moot. State ex rel. Lawton v. Town of Barton, 2005 WI App 16, 278 Wis. 2d 388, 692 N.W.2d 304, 04-0659.
19.97 AnnotationThis section does not limit what is meant by “any person” in sub. (1) and does not state that only certain persons may bring an action. A relator need not be disinterested in order to pursue an open meetings law challenge under sub. (4). 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 27
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: The Journal Times v. City of Racine Bd. of Police & Fire Commissioners, 2015 WI 56 (Wis. 2015).
The Journal Times v. City of Racine Bd. of Police & Fire Commissioners, 2015 WI 56 (Wis. 2015). “Whether the Commission violated the open meetings law is not properly before the court because the Newspaper did not request a district attorney to commence an action under Wis. Stat. § 19.97 . Under State ex rel. Blum v.”
State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58 (Wis. 2004). “Recommend to the legislature any changes in the organization, jurisdiction, operation and methods of conducting the business of the courts which can be put into effect only by legislative action.”
State Ex Rel. Olson v. City of Baraboo Jt. Review Bd., 2002 WI App 64 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “On September 27, 1999, Olson filed a complaint with the Sauk County District Attorney under Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (1). 4 When the State did not act on the complaint after twenty days, Olson sued Baraboo, the Joint Review Board, and Geise, in her official capacity as Baraboo's city…”
State Ex Rel. Auchinleck v. Town of LaGrange, 547 N.W.2d 587 (Wis. 1996). “Auchinleck, the acting police chief for the Town, filed an action on behalf of the State pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (1), (4), 3 alleging that this meeting was closed in violation of Wis.”
State Ex Rel. Badke v. Vill. Bd. of the Vill. of Greendale, 494 N.W.2d 408 (Wis. 1993). “For example, if the regular attendance of Plan Commission meetings by a quorum of the Village Board *568 does in fact require notice, the Village Board will continue to violate the law if this court does not issue a declaratory judgment mandating otherwise.”
Gillen v. City of Neenah, 580 N.W.2d 628 (Wis. 1998). “See Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (1). If the district attorney failed to bring an enforcement action within 20 days, the complainant could immediately file suit against the municipality, seeking declaratory or other appropriate relief.”
State Ex Rel. Buswell v. Tomah Area Sch. Dist., 2007 WI 71 (Wis. 2007). “We apply the new rule to this case because Buswell has acted as a relator on behalf of the state, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (3). As such, he has worked to vindicate his and others' right to open government.”
State Ex Rel. Hodge v. Town of Turtle Lake, 508 N.W.2d 603 (Wis. 1993). “Since the district attorney refused to prosecute the Board, Hodge is empowered to bring an action and is entitled to have the decision voided if we find that the public interest in enforcing the Open Meetings Law outweighs the public interest in sustaining the Board's actions.”
City of Racine v. Waste Facility Siting Bd., 575 N.W.2d 712 (Wis. 1998). “See Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (1). If the district attorney fails to bring an enforcement action within 20 days, the complainant may immediately file suit against the municipality, seeking declaratory or other appropriate relief.”
State Ex Rel. Siu Wing Leung v. City of Lake Geneva, 2003 WI App 129 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Leung claims that he is bringing this action as a "private attorney general" under Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (4), and that as such he can seek equitable relief under § 19.”
Fabyan v. Achtenhagen, 2002 WI App 214 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “In supplemental briefing ordered by this court, Fabyan addresses whether his failure to bring this action on behalf of the State pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (1999-2000) 1 is fatal.”
State Ex Rel. Lawton v. Town of Barton, 2005 WI App 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Contemporaneous with the filing of her complaint, Lawton served a verified complaint pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (1) (2001-02) 1 on the Washington County District Attorney's Office and the State Attorney General's Office, alleging several violations of the open meetings law.”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.97(1) — 4 cases
State Ex Rel. Olson v. City of Baraboo Jt. Review Bd., 2002 WI App 64 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “On September 27, 1999, Olson filed a complaint with the Sauk County District Attorney under Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (1). 4 When the State did not act on the complaint after twenty days, Olson sued Baraboo, the Joint Review Board, and Geise, in her official capacity as Baraboo's city…”
State ex rel. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, 2011 WI 43 (Wis. 2011).
Leanne Wied v. Scott Wheeler (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
Douglas Oitzinger v. City of Marinette (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 19.97(2) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Siu Wing Leung v. City of Lake Geneva, 2003 WI App 129 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Leung claims that he is bringing this action as a "private attorney general" under Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (4), and that as such he can seek equitable relief under § 19.”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.97(3) — 6 cases
State Ex Rel. Olson v. City of Baraboo Jt. Review Bd., 2002 WI App 64 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “On September 27, 1999, Olson filed a complaint with the Sauk County District Attorney under Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (1). 4 When the State did not act on the complaint after twenty days, Olson sued Baraboo, the Joint Review Board, and Geise, in her official capacity as Baraboo's city…”
State Ex Rel. Hodge v. Town of Turtle Lake, 508 N.W.2d 603 (Wis. 1993). “Since the district attorney refused to prosecute the Board, Hodge is empowered to bring an action and is entitled to have the decision voided if we find that the public interest in enforcing the Open Meetings Law outweighs the public interest in sustaining the Board's actions.”
State Ex Rel. Siu Wing Leung v. City of Lake Geneva, 2003 WI App 129 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Leung claims that he is bringing this action as a "private attorney general" under Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (4), and that as such he can seek equitable relief under § 19.”
State Ex Rel. Herro v. Vill. of McFarland, 2007 WI App 172 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
State Ex Rel. Epping v. City of Neillsville Common Council, 581 N.W.2d 548 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wis. Stat. § 19.97(4) — 11 cases
State Ex Rel. Badke v. Vill. Bd. of the Vill. of Greendale, 494 N.W.2d 408 (Wis. 1993). “For example, if the regular attendance of Plan Commission meetings by a quorum of the Village Board *568 does in fact require notice, the Village Board will continue to violate the law if this court does not issue a declaratory judgment mandating otherwise.”
State Ex Rel. Hodge v. Town of Turtle Lake, 508 N.W.2d 603 (Wis. 1993). “Since the district attorney refused to prosecute the Board, Hodge is empowered to bring an action and is entitled to have the decision voided if we find that the public interest in enforcing the Open Meetings Law outweighs the public interest in sustaining the Board's actions.”
State Ex Rel. Olson v. City of Baraboo Jt. Review Bd., 2002 WI App 64 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “On September 27, 1999, Olson filed a complaint with the Sauk County District Attorney under Wis. Stat. § 19.97 (1). 4 When the State did not act on the complaint after twenty days, Olson sued Baraboo, the Joint Review Board, and Geise, in her official capacity as Baraboo's city…”
State Ex Rel. Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Pleva, 456 N.W.2d 359 (Wis. 1990).
State Ex Rel. H.D. Enter. II, LLC v. City of Stoughton, 602 N.W.2d 72 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
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.