Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 242.11 (2026)

Uniformity of application and construction

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

242.11242.11 Uniformity of application and construction. This chapter shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this chapter among states enacting it.

242.11 HistoryHistory: 1987 a. 192.

242.11 AnnotationThis section provides an explicit invitation for a court to consider the way other jurisdictions have interpreted the same language in the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act [now the Uniform Voidable Transactions Law]. Beck v. BidRX, LLC, 2018 WI App 61, 384 Wis. 2d 207, 918 N.W.2d 96, 17-2043.

242.11 AnnotationThe legislature expressly stated its intent that the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act [now the Uniform Voidable Transactions Law] should be construed to accomplish uniformity among states enacting it. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Great Lakes Quick Lube LP v. Theisen, 2018 WI App 70, 384 Wis. 2d 580, 920 N.W.2d 356, 18-0333.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2004–2018 · leading case: Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI 128 (Wis. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Badger State Bank v. Taylor, 2004 WI 128 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 2× “35 Wis. Stat. § 242.11 . 36 Frank R. Kennedy, Involuntary Fraudulent Transfers, 9 Cardozo L.”

Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Great Lakes Quick Lube LP v. Theisen, 920 N.W.2d 356 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “§ 242.11 (emphasis added). The question *596 raised in this case about the interpretation of the discovery rule has been addressed in many jurisdictions that have adopted the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.”

C & A Investments v. Kelly, 2010 WI App 151 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “C & A Investments *230 therefore urges us to adopt the "majority rule" among other states that punitive damages are available under the Act.”

Beck v. BidRX, LLC, 918 N.W.2d 96 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “among states enacting it"-an explicit *100 invitation for us to consider the way other jurisdictions have interpreted this same language.”

Weintraut v. Comm'r, 2016 T.C. Memo. 142 (Tax Ct. 2016). “Ann. sec. 242.11 ("This chapter shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this chapter among states enacting it.”

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.