Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 2.07 (2026)
Transcribed records of Rusk County
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
2.072.07 Transcribed records of Rusk County. The transcribed records of Rusk County, which have been or may be transcribed from the original records of other counties, of which territory now comprising said Rusk County were formerly a part, under and by direction of the county board of Rusk County, and properly attested by the affidavit of the person or persons making such transcriptions, shall be received in all courts in this state, as prima facie evidence of the matters therein contained, in the same manner as now provided by law for the reception of record evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: State v. Richard Knutson, Inc., 537 N.W.2d 420 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Richard Knutson, Inc., 537 N.W.2d 420 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “(1) A corporation may be convicted of the commission of an offense if: (a) the offense is a violation or the offense is defined by a statute other than the Code in which a legislative purpose to impose liability on corporations plainly appears and the conduct is performed by an…”
O'Neill v. Gourmet Sys. of Minnesota, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 445 (W.D. Wis. 2002). “” 1 Newberg and Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 2.07, at 2-44 (3d ed.1992). According to these authorities, although the named plaintiff must demonstrate standing, *453 passive [class] members need not make any individual showing of standing, because the standing issue focuses…”
Rozema v. Marshfield Clinic, 174 F.R.D. 425 (W.D. Wis. 1997). “Defendants seem to argue that each potential class member must satisfy an individualized standing inquiry.”
Mared Indus., Inc. v. Mansfield, 2005 WI 5 (Wis. 2005). “Bernstine, Wisconsin and Federal Civil Procedure, § 2.07 (1986) ("In the case of a natural person, service may be personal, substituted (on an agent, such as a member of the family at defendant's abode or on an agent appointed by the defendant or by law for service), or by…”
First Wisconsin Nat'l Bank of Milwaukee v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 289 N.W.2d 288 (Wis. 1980). “See also: Davenport & Murray, Secured Transactions, 43, §2.07 (b) (1978). Thus, the court held that “as between the dealer and Franklin Investment, the car was ‘inventory’ and remained in that category irrespective of future transfer or sale of the car.”
Gustafson v. Polk Cnty., 226 F.R.D. 601 (W.D. Wis. 2005). “1 Newberg and Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 2.07, at 2-48 (3d ed.1992). A named plaintiffs claim is typical if it rests on the same legal theory and arises from the same course of conduct alleged by the other members of the proposed class.”
Van Den Heuvel v. AI Credit Corp., 951 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (E.D. Wis. 2013). “§§ 2.07, 2.14, 2.16(6), and 2.17, and that these laws and regulations constitute part of the “customs of the trade” which should have alerted the insurer defendants to the fact that Plaintiffs would reasonably expect disclosure of complete information about the insurance…”
Glenn Bluemer v. Brian Young (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “” Section 2.07 defines “Common Elements” 4 No.”
— Wis. Stat. § 2.07(b) — 1 case
Glenn Bluemer v. Brian Young (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “” Section 2.07 defines “Common Elements” 4 No.”
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.