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

Wis. Stat. § 2.05 (2026)

Brown County records

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
2.052.05 Brown County records. The record in Brown County, made prior to January 1, 1840, of any such conveyance or instrument mentioned in s. 889.17, affecting lands situated in any other county at the time such record was made and duly certified copies thereof, shall be received in evidence with the same effect as if the same had been duly recorded in the county where the land was situated except against purchasers or claimants of any title, estate, interest or lien, in good faith and without notice, and except that no notice shall be implied from such record. A copy of any such record, duly certified by the register of deeds of Brown County, may also be recorded in any county where the land may be situated with like effect as the original conveyance or instrument; and any such record of any such copy heretofore made shall have such effect.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Green v. Smith & Nephew AHP, Inc., 2001 WI 109 (Wis. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Green v. Smith & Nephew AHP, Inc., 2001 WI 109 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 2× “defective so as to be unreasonably dangerous, you must be satisfied by the greater weight of the credible evidence to a reasonable certainty that: (1) the product was in a defective condition; (2) the defective condition made the product unreasonably dangerous to persons or…”
State v. Jadowski, 2004 WI 68 (Wis. 2004). “It is unjust because the actor is subjected to the stigma of a criminal conviction without being morally blameworthy.”
Bartus v. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 501 N.W.2d 419 (Wis. 1993). “Code, HA § 2.05 (1991). 8 The court may also review the reasonableness of the conditions placed on probation, e.”
Schmidt v. United States Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 218 F.R.D. 619 (E.D. Wis. 2003). “Bouchard, The Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, § 2.05[2], at 2-50 (1986). The plaintiffs argue VA medical staff did not need to access employee records through CPRS at all, and even if they did, they did not need to view the entire SSNs of employees.”
Adams v. United States, 392 F. Supp. 1272 (E.D. Wis. 1975). · cites it 2× ““Revenue Procedure 69-26 (1969-2 Cumulative Bulletin 308), Section 2.05 in effect states that in order to maintain a third party action that an assessment be made.”
Watkins v. Stevens (E.D. Wis. 2024). · cites it 3× “My petition was initiated in attempts to challenge the revocation of my extended supervision, judicial bias by ALJ, and a violation of time requirements in accordance with HA § 2.05. To this day there has been no acknowledgment of my petition filed and sent on 3·22·21…”
Petition of Charlton, 834 F. Supp. 1089 (E.D. Wis. 1993). · cites it 4× “Under the procedure contemplated by the local rules of the eastern district of Wisconsin, an order of the highest court of a state disbarring a member of its bar will result in disbarment of said member from practice before the eastern district. See Local Rule 2, Section 2.05.…”
N. Elec., Inc. v. Local Union 158, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 387 F. Supp. 2d 916 (E.D. Wis. 2005). · cites it 2× “” All matters coming before the Labor-Management Committee are decided by majority vote. (CBA § 2.”
Kathleen K. Navis v. Door Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “, § 2.05(3)(a). The only agricultural uses permissible in Mixed Use Commercial zones are farm markets and greenhouses.”
Michael S. Bahrke v. Door Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “ZONING ORDINANCE § 2.05(3)(a). Thus, Camp Zion undeniably required a CUP for its dining hall project, and the settlement agreement granted the required CUP without complying with the required statutory and zoning ordinance processes.”
Harris v. Lucas (E.D. Wis. 2020). “Code HA § 2.05 (4)(a). See ECF No. 5 at 10–11. The final revocation hearing is scheduled for July 23, 2020.”
Lother v. Buesgen (E.D. Wis. 2022). “It is true that, initially, the burden of proof is placed on the State, which has “the burden of proof to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the client violated the rules or conditions of supervision.” Wis. Admin.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 2.05(3)(a) — 2 cases
Kathleen K. Navis v. Door Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “, § 2.05(3)(a). The only agricultural uses permissible in Mixed Use Commercial zones are farm markets and greenhouses.”
Michael S. Bahrke v. Door Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “ZONING ORDINANCE § 2.05(3)(a). Thus, Camp Zion undeniably required a CUP for its dining hall project, and the settlement agreement granted the required CUP without complying with the required statutory and zoning ordinance processes.”
— Wis. Stat. § 2.05(8) — 1 case
Lother v. Buesgen (E.D. Wis. 2022). “It is true that, initially, the burden of proof is placed on the State, which has “the burden of proof to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the client violated the rules or conditions of supervision.” Wis. Admin.”
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.