Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 351.01 (2026)
Declaration of intent
✓ laws through the 2025-26 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
351.01(2)(2) To deny the privilege of operating motor vehicles to persons who by their conduct and record have demonstrated their indifference for the safety and welfare of others and their disrespect for the laws, courts and administrative agencies of this state.
351.01(3)(3) To discourage repetition of traffic violations by individuals against the peace and dignity of this state and its political subdivisions and to impose increased and added deprivation of the privilege to operate motor vehicles upon habitual traffic offenders who have been convicted repeatedly of traffic law violations.
351.01 AnnotationCh. 351 is constitutional. State v. Strassburg, 120 Wis. 2d 30, 352 N.W.2d 215 (Ct. App. 1984).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1934–2022 · leading case: State v. Larson, 395 N.W.2d 608 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Larson, 395 N.W.2d 608 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “Section 351.01(1) and (3). It does not square with the legislature’s declared intent that a person meeting the requirements of sec.”
State v. Madison, 353 N.W.2d 835 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “8 The legislative purpose 'behind the habitual offender act is set forth in sec. 351.01, Stats., as follows: The legislature intends by enacting this chapter: (1) To provide maximum safety for all users of the highways of this state.”
State v. Strassburg, 352 N.W.2d 215 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “Section 351.01(2), Stats., states that one of the purposes of this section is “[t]o deny the privilege of operating motor vehicles to persons who by their conduct and record have demonstrated their indifference for the safety and welfare of others .”
De Bruin v. State, 412 N.W.2d 130 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “” Sec. 351.01, Stats. In light of the legislature’s language highlighting the repetition of traffic violations, as opposed to convictions, by individuals, we conclude that the more reasonable interpretation of sec.”
State v. Brooks, 254 N.W. 374 (Wis. 1934). “” After the conviction and sentence on the charge just described, he was again arrested, charged with violating sec. 351.01, Stats., which reads: “Any person who shall commit the crime of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not more than three years…”
Wagner v. State, 259 N.W. 826 (Wis. 1935). “, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. On the other hand, the fact that the woman was unwilling to have the intercourse with the defendant, as he had intended, and that his intent in that respect may not have been founded on any reasonable probability of the…”
Charles Rood v. Selective Ins. Co. of South Carolina, 980 N.W.2d 282 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 351.01(1); State v. Hart, 89 Wis. 2d 58, 66 , 277 N.”
State v. Walczak, 460 N.W.2d 797 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “While in De Bruin we had the benefit of stated legislative intent, see sec. 351.01, Stats., we also noted that an interpretation such as that advanced here by the state would work to frustrate the statute's purpose.”
Wis. Stat. § 351.01(1): 2 cases
State v. Larson, 395 N.W.2d 608 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “Section 351.01(1) and (3). It does not square with the legislature’s declared intent that a person meeting the requirements of sec.”
Charles Rood v. Selective Ins. Co. of South Carolina, 980 N.W.2d 282 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 351.01(1); State v. Hart, 89 Wis. 2d 58, 66 , 277 N.”
Wis. Stat. § 351.01(2): 2 cases
State v. Strassburg, 352 N.W.2d 215 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “Section 351.01(2), Stats., states that one of the purposes of this section is “[t]o deny the privilege of operating motor vehicles to persons who by their conduct and record have demonstrated their indifference for the safety and welfare of others .”
State v. Larson, 395 N.W.2d 608 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “Section 351.01(1) and (3). It does not square with the legislature’s declared intent that a person meeting the requirements of sec.”
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.