Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 2.06 (2026)
Records of Iron and Forest counties
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
2.062.06 Records of Iron and Forest counties. The records of Iron and Forest counties, which have been or may be transcribed from the original records of other counties, of which the territory now comprising either of said counties was formerly a part, under and by direction of the county board of either such counties and properly attested by the affidavit of the person or persons making such transcription or certified to under the hand and official seal of the officer having the custody of such original records shall be received in all courts as prima facie evidence of the matters therein contained in the same manner as now provided by law for the reception of record evidence, and as to Iron County shall be so received notwithstanding any defects in said certificate, either as to form or omission therefrom of matter or facts required by law to be stated. One such certificate to each volume of records or other documents so transcribed shall be deemed sufficient.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Town of Rhine v. Bizzell, 2008 WI 76 (Wis. 2008).
Town of Rhine v. Bizzell, 2008 WI 76 (Wis. 2008). “However, facial substantive due process challenges are rarely successful. Mandelker, supra, § 2.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Ford Motor Co., 592 N.W.2d 201 (Wis. 1999). “Dooley, Modern Tort Law § 2.06, at 13-14 (1977); G. Gilmore, The Death of Contract 87-90 (1974); S.”
Great Neck Capital Appreciation Inv. P'ship, L.P. v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, L.L.P., 212 F.R.D. 400 (E.D. Wis. 2002). “Alba Conte, Attorney Fee Awards § 2.06 (2d ed.1993). The Seventh Circuit recognizes that there are advantages to utilizing the percentage of fund method in common fund cases including its relative objectivity and the fact that it is easily administered.”
Connexus Credit Union v. First & Peoples Bank & Trust Co. & Thread Bank (W.D. Wis. 2026). “Second, First & Peoples Bank contends that Connexus breached Section 2.06 of the agreement because it didn’t tell First & Peoples Bank about “negative events that [would] cause Connexus to believe that continuing to purchase loans under the Agreement would materially affect the…”
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.