Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 302.21 (2026)

Vocational education program in auto body repair at the Green Bay Correctional Institution

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
302.21302.21Vocational education program in auto body repair at the Green Bay Correctional Institution.
302.21(1)(1)The department may maintain and operate a vocational education program in auto body repair at the Green Bay Correctional Institution. Notwithstanding s. 303.06 (1), in connection with the vocational education program the institution may receive from licensed automobile dealers and regularly established automobile repair shops vehicles to be repaired, painted or otherwise processed by residents enrolled in the program.
302.21(2)(2)Prices for repairing, painting or otherwise processing vehicles in the program shall be fixed as near as possible to the market value of the labor and materials furnished. Proceeds received from the repairing, painting or other processing of vehicles shall be deposited as provided in s. 20.410 (1) (kk) and shall be available to the institution to purchase materials, supplies and equipment necessary to operate the vocational education program in auto body repair.
302.21 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 224; 1977 c. 418; 1979 c. 34 s. 2102 (20) (a); 1981 c. 314 s. 146; 1989 a. 31 s. 1640; Stats. 1989 s. 302.21; 1989 a. 283.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1999–1999 · leading case: Lambert v. Sullivan, 35 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (E.D. Wis. 1999).
Lambert v. Sullivan, 35 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (E.D. Wis. 1999). “§ 302.21(2m)(a) (Supp.1998). 2 . Lambert also seems to argue that the proposed transfer violates his federal equal protection rights because incarceration in a privately-run facility is more punitive than incarceration in a state-run facility.”
— Wis. Stat. § 302.21(2m)(a) — 1 case
Lambert v. Sullivan, 35 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (E.D. Wis. 1999). “§ 302.21(2m)(a) (Supp.1998). 2 . Lambert also seems to argue that the proposed transfer violates his federal equal protection rights because incarceration in a privately-run facility is more punitive than incarceration in a state-run facility.”
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.