Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 201.10 (2026)
Fees for authority to issue securities, expenses
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
201.10(2)(2) The provisions of sub. (3) shall apply to the issuance, renewal or assumption by a public service corporation which is a public utility as defined in the federal power act, of evidences of indebtedness maturing not more than one year after the date of issue, renewal or assumption thereof.
201.10(3)(3) Whenever the commission deems it necessary to make an investigation of the books, accounts and practices or to make an appraisal of the property of any public service corporation which has filed an application for authority to issue any securities to which this chapter is applicable, such public service corporation shall pay all expenses reasonably attributable to such special investigation, or to such an appraisal of the property. For the purpose of calculating investigative and appraisal expenses of the commission, 90 percent of the costs determined shall be costs of the commission and 10 percent of the costs determined shall be costs of state government operations. The procedure set up by s. 195.60 or 196.85, whichever is appropriate, for the rendering and collection of bills shall be in all ways applicable to the rendering and collection of bills under this section. Ninety percent of the amounts paid to the public service commission under authority of this subsection shall be credited to the appropriation account under s. 20.155 (1) (g).
201.10 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 125; 1977 c. 29; 1991 a. 269; 1993 a. 16, 123, 1997 a. 140 s. 13; Stats. 1997 s. 200.10; 1999 a. 150 s. 656; Stats. 1999 s. 201.10; 2017 a. 136.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1965–2019 · leading case: Lamar Cent. Outdoor, LLC v. Div. of Hearings & Appeals (Wis. 2019).
Lamar Cent. Outdoor, LLC v. Div. of Hearings & Appeals (Wis. 2019). “§ 201.10 prohibit the enlargement of nonconforming, off-premise signs erected after March 18, 1972; (2) whether the DHA misinterpreted and misapplied common law authorities relating to nonconforming uses; (3) whether the DHA erred as a matter of law by finding that the right to…”
Ehlers-Mann & Assocs., Inc. v. Madison Am. Guar. Ins., 135 N.W.2d 815 (Wis. 1965). “47 because of the application of sec. 201.10, Stats. Although this law in one form or another has been in existence over fifty years, it has not been interpreted by this court.”
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.