Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 23.20 (2026)
Use of department gravel pits
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
23.2023.20 Use of department gravel pits. The department may permit any town, county or state agency to obtain gravel, sand, fill dirt or other fill material needed for road purposes from any department-owned gravel pit or similar facility if this material is unavailable from private vendors within a reasonable distance of the worksite. The department may require environmental safeguards before permitting a town, county or state agency to obtain this material. The department shall charge a fee for this material commensurate with the fee charged by private vendors.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1982–2004 · leading case: State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24 (Wis. 2000).
State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24 (Wis. 2000). “§ 23.20(6); Menomonee Falls City Ord. § 1031(q); Waukesha City Ord.”
Dog Fed'n of Wisconsin, Inc. v. City of South Milwaukee, 504 N.W.2d 375 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “Section 23.20 of the Municipal Code of the City of South Milwaukee provides, as pertinent to this appeal: SECTION 1; .”
Clarke v. Ford Motor Co., 220 F.R.D. 568 (E.D. Wis. 2004). “Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.20 (3d ed.2003) (stating that an implicit requirement of Rule 23 is the existence of an identifiable class).”
Schmeling v. Phelps, 569 N.W.2d 784 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “We acknowledge that the enactment, or failed enactment, of an amendment to a zoning ordinance relating to a specific parcel of real estate entails procedural safeguards that are not applicable to other, more general legislative enactments.”
State ex rel. La Follette v. Bd. of Supervisors of Milwaukee Cnty., 327 N.W.2d 161 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). “*630 We conclude, then, that mandamus does not lie against the county executive to prevent him from exercising a discretionary veto power granted by the constitution. Similarly, mandamus does not lie against the county board since it passed the necessary funding resolution.”
State Ex Rel. La Follette v. Bd. of Supvrs., 327 N.W.2d 161 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). “Similarly, mandamus does not lie against the county board since it passed the necessary funding resolution.”
— Wis. Stat. § 23.20(6) — 1 case
State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24 (Wis. 2000). “§ 23.20(6); Menomonee Falls City Ord. § 1031(q); Waukesha City Ord.”
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.