Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 195.28 (2026)
Protecting grade crossings
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
195.28(1)(1) Petition; hearing; order. Upon petition of the department, city council, village board, town board, superintendent of highways or by 5 or more electors in any town, village or city, or of any railroad corporation or railroad historical society, to determine whether a public highway and railroad grade crossing protects and promotes public safety, the office may investigate and issue an appropriate order without a public hearing. If the petitioner, railroad, railroad historical society or any interested party objects to the order and requests a hearing within 20 days after the date that the order is issued, the office shall proceed under s. 195.04. Notice of an investigation or hearing shall be served upon the department, which shall be an interested party, and any recommendation it may file with the office at or prior to a hearing, if there is one, regarding crossing protection shall be considered as evidence in the proceeding. The office shall determine whether the existing warning devices at such crossing are adequate to protect and promote public safety. If the office determines, either without or after a hearing, that protection is not adequate, it may order the railroad company or railroad historical society to keep a flagman at the crossing or to install automatic signals or other suitable safety device at specific locations at such crossing. The office may order the relocation of existing signals and devices to improve protection at a crossing. Any crossing protection installed or maintained as approved by the office, whether by order or otherwise, shall be deemed adequate and appropriate protection for the crossing.
195.28(1m)(1m) Arterial stop signs. In any proceeding under sub. (1), the office may by order require that the state or municipality install at any crossing involved in such proceeding an official stop sign.
195.28(2)(2) Installation costs. The cost of any signal or other crossing protection device which is ordered installed under sub. (1) and the cost of installing any such device shall be paid by the department from the appropriations under s. 20.395 (2) (gj), (gr) and (gx).
195.28(3)(3) Maintenance costs. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the cost of maintaining crossing protection devices ordered under sub. (1) shall be the responsibility of the railroad or railroad historical society. Any railroad company or railroad historical society that incurs expenses for maintenance of signals or other safety devices may file a claim for reimbursement with the department regardless of the date of installation of the signals or devices. At the close of each fiscal year the department shall reimburse claimants under this subsection for 50 percent of the costs, as determined by the office, incurred for maintenance of railroad crossing protection devices from the appropriations under s. 20.395 (2) (gj) and (gq). If the amount in the appropriations under s. 20.395 (2) (gj) and (gq) is not adequate to fund maintenance reimbursement under this subsection, the amount shall be prorated in the manner determined by the office.
195.28(4)(4) Previous office orders. Subsection (3) applies to maintenance costs for all crossing protection devices regardless of any prior order of the office apportioning maintenance costs.
195.28 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 155; 1973 c. 243 s. 82; 1975 c. 135; 1977 c. 29 ss. 1654 (8) (b), 1656 (43); 1979 c. 34; 1981 c. 20 ss. 1504, 2202 (51) (c); 1981 c. 347 s. 80 (1); 1985 a. 29 s. 3202 (51); 1987 a. 27; 1989 a. 31; 1991 a. 269; 1993 a. 16, 123; 1997 a. 135; 2005 a. 179, s. 24.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1943–2026 · leading case: Anderson v. Wisconsin Cent. Transp. Co., 327 F. Supp. 2d 969 (E.D. Wis. 2004).
Anderson v. Wisconsin Cent. Transp. Co., 327 F. Supp. 2d 969 (E.D. Wis. 2004). “State Law Preemption Defendant argues that plaintiffs challenge to the adequacy of the warning signals is barred by Wis. Stat. § 195.28 (1), which provides that “[a]ny crossing protection installed or maintained as approved by [the office of the commissioner of railroads],…”
Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club v. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 387 N.W.2d 254 (Wis. 1986). “The legislative provision countermanded that determination and said that "`Notwithstanding section 195.28 and 195.29 of the statutes or any order made thereunder.”
Soo Line R.R. v. Dep't of Transp., 303 N.W.2d 626 (Wis. 1981). “Notwithstanding section 195.28 and 195.29 of the statutes or any order made thereunder, the department of transportation is prohibited from constructing or participating in the construction of a separated grade overhead structure intersecting relocated state trunk highway 13 and…”
Thomson v. City of Racine, 9 N.W.2d 91 (Wis. 1943). “29 (3) (b), which reads,— “Flagmen or gates shall be placed and maintained, or such mechanical safety appliances- shall be installed upon such public traveled grade crossings in villages and cities as the city or village authorities may direct,”— a city is authorized to enact an…”
Soo Line R.R. v. Wisconsin, Dep't of Transp. — Div. of Highways, 489 F. Supp. 620 (W.D. Wis. 1980). “Notwithstanding sections 195.28 and 195.29 of the statutes or any order made thereunder, the department of transportation is prohibited from constructing or participating in the construction of a separated grade overhead structure intersecting relocated state trunk highway 13…”
Vill. of Prentice v. Transp. Comm'n, 365 N.W.2d 899 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “While proving the need for change is not identical to showing a change of circumstances, the requirement does limit the freedom of the commission to deviate from previous orders.”
Murawski v. Brown, 187 N.W.2d 194 (Wis. 1971). “We think the crucial fact in this case is that the public service commission has, by the authority granted to it under sec. 195.28, Stats., imposed a duty on the railroad to erect and maintain at this crossing an electric warn *313 ing system of flashing lights and ringing hells.”
City of Middleton v. The Off. of Comm'r of Railroads (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “The parties do not dispute that OCR can only regulate public railroad crossings under §§ 195.”
Rodewald, Gerald v. Wisconsin Cent. Ltd. (W.D. Wis. 2022). “§ 195.28 (1). That statute provides that “[a]ny crossing protection installed or maintained as approved by the [Office of the Commissioner of Railroads], whether by order or otherwise, shall be deemed adequate and appropriate protection for the crossing.”
Wisconsin Cent. Ltd. v. Gottlieb, 2013 WI App 61 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “Formal proceedings concerning the crossing were initiated in 2005 when WCL petitioned the OCR to close or alter the crossing, as provided by Wis. Stat. §§ 195.28 and 195.29 (2011-12).”
Nutt v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 927 N.W.2d 164 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 195.28 to "determine the adequacy of warning devices at public crossings of railroad tracks in the state of Wisconsin.”
Chicago & North W. Ry. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 166 N.W.2d 143 (Wis. 1969). “When the PSC issued its notice of hearing, the notice specified that the city had requested relief under sec. 195.28, Stats. This factor is particularly interesting because this court *280 has previously entertained the identical question involved here in a 1956 case between…”
— Wis. Stat. § 195.28(1) — 3 cases
Anderson v. Wisconsin Cent. Transp. Co., 327 F. Supp. 2d 969 (E.D. Wis. 2004). “State Law Preemption Defendant argues that plaintiffs challenge to the adequacy of the warning signals is barred by Wis. Stat. § 195.28 (1), which provides that “[a]ny crossing protection installed or maintained as approved by [the office of the commissioner of railroads],…”
City of Middleton v. The Off. of Comm'r of Railroads (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “The parties do not dispute that OCR can only regulate public railroad crossings under §§ 195.”
Rodewald, Gerald v. Wisconsin Cent. Ltd. (W.D. Wis. 2022). “§ 195.28 (1). That statute provides that “[a]ny crossing protection installed or maintained as approved by the [Office of the Commissioner of Railroads], whether by order or otherwise, shall be deemed adequate and appropriate protection for the crossing.”
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.