Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 2 — DIVISION OF THE STATE INTO COUNTIES, AND THEIR BOUNDARIES
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 2.02 (2026)

Construction of boundary descriptions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
2.022.02 Construction of boundary descriptions. Whenever the boundary line of any county is described as running north or south on any range line, or east or west on any township line, the said boundary line shall be deemed to run on such lines as are established by the United States survey, making such offsets, where said range lines and township lines are not continuous straight lines, as are made by such United States surveys.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Town of Rhine v. Bizzell, 2008 WI 76 (Wis. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Town of Rhine v. Bizzell, 2008 WI 76 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 6× “, Municipal Code § 2.02. As a result, we remand to the circuit court to apply the code's definition of "public nuisance.”
Millen v. Thomas, 550 N.W.2d 134 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “, SHORELAND AND FLOODLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE § 2.02(54a). In November 1980, Krumme conveyed her remaining off-lake dominant estate to Thomas together with the easement.”
Barland v. Eau Claire Cnty., 575 N.W.2d 691 (Wis. 1998). · cites it 2× “Because we are left with an action that lies wholly within the judiciary's sphere of exclusive power, [22] we conclude that the bumping provision is *590 unconstitutional, and therefore void and unenforceable as it applies to judicial assistants.”
Sea View Estates Beach Club, Inc. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 588 N.W.2d 667 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “, Shoreland & Floodland Protection Ordinance § 2.02(8) (1995). However, we deem Sea View's argument waived because it was not raised at the contested hearing before the ALJ.”
In Re Kedrowski, 284 B.R. 439 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2002). “01 and § 2.02 of the ITMRP). More importantly, the court stated: The right to receive per capita as an equal fraction of the tribe’s gaming revenues all members receive constitutes a *449 right to share equally in money.”
United States v. Ettrick Wood Prods., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 1262 (W.D. Wis. 1988). “Model Penal Code § 2.02(7). See also United States v. Ramsey, 785 F.”
Universal Restoration Servs., Inc. v. Hartung (In re Hartung), 511 B.R. 538 (E.D. Wis. 2014). · cites it 3× “, § 2.02 Comment 9, at 248 (explaining that the Model Penal Code’s definition of “knowledge” was designed to include “ ‘wilful blindness’ ”).”
DeWitt v. Ferries, 921 N.W.2d 188 (Wis. 2018). “Code CB §§ 2.02 , .06. Further, most cemetery authorities must either *17 apply to the cemetery board for a license or register with the board.”
Levine v. Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 679 F. Supp. 1478 (W.D. Wis. 1988). “Nimmer, Nimmer on Freedom of Speech § 2.02 (1984). The Supreme Court still employs the “balancing test” enunciated in the Douds case.”
Fabyan v. Waukesha Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2001 WI App 162 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Waukesha County Shoreland, Floodland Protection Ordinance, § 2.02 (66a) and (83a) (emphasis added). ¶ 18.”
Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Commc'ns, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 3d 881 (W.D. Wis. 2014). · cites it 2× “02(2)(e) (1985), and a negligent defendant is one who should have known of a similar risk but, in fact, did not, see § 2.02(2)(d). Id. at 2070-71. The Court rejected the “knew or should have known” standard set forth by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in part…”
Sveum v. Stoughton Lumber Co., 534 B.R. 771 (W.D. Wis. 2015). · cites it 2× “at 1760 (emphasis in original) (quoting Model Penal Code, supra, at § 2.02(2)(c), p. 226); see also In re Yerges, 512 B.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 2.02(2)(c) — 6 cases
Universal Restoration Servs., Inc. v. Hartung (In re Hartung), 511 B.R. 538 (E.D. Wis. 2014). “, § 2.02 Comment 9, at 248 (explaining that the Model Penal Code’s definition of “knowledge” was designed to include “ ‘wilful blindness’ ”).”
Ruck v. McGill (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2023).
Sveum v. Stoughton Lumber Co., 534 B.R. 771 (W.D. Wis. 2015). “at 1760 (emphasis in original) (quoting Model Penal Code, supra, at § 2.02(2)(c), p. 226); see also In re Yerges, 512 B.”
Brisk v. Swinehart (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2019).
Sonnentag v. Swinehart (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 2.02(2)(d) — 1 case
Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Commc'ns, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 3d 881 (W.D. Wis. 2014). “02(2)(e) (1985), and a negligent defendant is one who should have known of a similar risk but, in fact, did not, see § 2.02(2)(d). Id. at 2070-71. The Court rejected the “knew or should have known” standard set forth by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in part…”
— Wis. Stat. § 2.02(2)(e) — 2 cases
Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Commc'ns, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 3d 881 (W.D. Wis. 2014). “02(2)(e) (1985), and a negligent defendant is one who should have known of a similar risk but, in fact, did not, see § 2.02(2)(d). Id. at 2070-71. The Court rejected the “knew or should have known” standard set forth by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in part…”
Sveum v. Stoughton Lumber Co., 534 B.R. 771 (W.D. Wis. 2015). “at 1760 (emphasis in original) (quoting Model Penal Code, supra, at § 2.02(2)(c), p. 226); see also In re Yerges, 512 B.”
— Wis. Stat. § 2.02(54a) — 1 case
Millen v. Thomas, 550 N.W.2d 134 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “, SHORELAND AND FLOODLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE § 2.02(54a). In November 1980, Krumme conveyed her remaining off-lake dominant estate to Thomas together with the easement.”
— Wis. Stat. § 2.02(7) — 1 case
United States v. Ettrick Wood Prods., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 1262 (W.D. Wis. 1988). “Model Penal Code § 2.02(7). See also United States v. Ramsey, 785 F.”
— Wis. Stat. § 2.02(8) — 1 case
Sea View Estates Beach Club, Inc. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 588 N.W.2d 667 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “, Shoreland & Floodland Protection Ordinance § 2.02(8) (1995). However, we deem Sea View's argument waived because it was not raised at the contested hearing before the ALJ.”
— Wis. Stat. § 2.02(81) — 1 case
Millen v. Thomas, 550 N.W.2d 134 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “, SHORELAND AND FLOODLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE § 2.02(54a). In November 1980, Krumme conveyed her remaining off-lake dominant estate to Thomas together with the easement.”
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.