Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 348.28 (2026)
Permits to be carried
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
348.28(1)(a)(a) Permits issued under ss. 348.25, 348.26 and 348.27, other than a permit described in s. 348.27 (19) (b) 5. b., shall be carried on the vehicle during operations so permitted.
348.28(1)(b)(b) Permits issued under s. 348.27 (19) that are required to be carried on the vehicle under par. (a) may be carried and produced in either printed or electronic format, including by display of electronic images on a cellular telephone or other electronic device. If the permit is displayed in electronic format on any cellular telephone or other electronic device, a traffic officer or inspector under s. 110.07 (3) may not view, and producing the permit in electronic format is not considered consent for the traffic officer or inspector to view, any content on the telephone or other device except the permit.
348.28(2)(2) Any person violating this section may be required to forfeit not less than $10 nor more than $20 for the first offense and not less than $25 nor more than $50 for the 2nd and each subsequent conviction within one year.
348.28 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 278; 1985 a. 202 s. 37; 2005 a. 250; 2007 a. 171; 2011 a. 55, 56, 58, 243; 2013 a. 377; 2017 a. 59.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1927–1986 · leading case: State Law Enf't Standards Bd. v. Vill. of Lyndon Station, 295 N.W.2d 818 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980).
State Law Enf't Standards Bd. v. Vill. of Lyndon Station, 295 N.W.2d 818 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “[6] Section 348.28, Stats. (1953), Public Officers, Malfeasance; sec.”
State v. Stoehr, 396 N.W.2d 177 (Wis. 1986). “13, adopted as part of the new 1955 criminal code, can be traced to sec. 348.28, Stats. 1953, which proscribed malfeasance of public officers.”
State v. Bennett, 252 N.W. 298 (Wis. 1934). “The prosecution in this case is upon an indictment by a grand jury for malfeasance in office under sec. 348.28, Stats. The trial was to the court, without a jury, and the defendant was found guilty as charged.”
State ex rel. Schwenker v. Dist. Court of Milwaukee Cnty., 240 N.W. 406 (Wis. 1932). “29 reads : “Any person mentioned in section 348.28 who shall pay, redeem, discount or purchase any debt, claim or demand in favor of any other person, against the state, or any county, town, school district, school board, city or village therein, or against any fund thereof…”
Liskowitz v. State, 282 N.W. 103 (Wis. 1939). “” Sec. 348.28, Stats., provides that “any officer .”
Reetz v. Kitch, 283 N.W. 348 (Wis. 1939). “*19 His interest being' established, the next question is whether his relation to the transaction was sufficiently close to* bring the contract within the prohibition of sec. 348.28, Stats. The most recent case in this court and one which deals elaborately with the subject is…”
Murphy v. Paull, 212 N.W. 402 (Wis. 1927). “Assuming they could not ratify the loan to the bank and that it was a void transaction under sec. 348.28, Stats., yet since the loan has been repaid and neither the bank nor the village has been a gainer or loser by reason of the irregularity, a court of equity will not, under…”
State ex rel. Dinneen v. Larson, 284 N.W. 21 (Wis. 1939). “Furthermore, the state claims that Dinneen violated sec. 348.28, Stats., in which, — in connection with declaring that the commission of certain acts by an officer in performing certain other acts in his official capacity shall be punishable,— there is the omnibus provision, “or…”
State v. Konkol, 266 N.W. 174 (Wis. 1936). “This act is charged to constitute a violation of the provision of sec. 348.28, Stats. The other counts are identical except that each count relates to a different town order.”
Dane Cnty. v. Bloomfield, 64 N.W.2d 829 (Wis. 1954). “If any person gives bail for his appearance to answer a charge under such ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, except for a parking violation, it shall not be forfeited for his failure to appear except by order of the court.”
State Ex Rel. Stock v. Kubiak, 55 N.W.2d 905 (Wis. 1952). “” If there were doubt that the provisions of this statute authorize the employment of the relator we think that even in the absence of the statute the relator must be considered to have been an agent of the town within the contemplation of sec. 348.28, Stats. If we were required…”
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.