Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 4.04 (2026)

Fourth assembly district

✓ current as of July 2026

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

4.044.04 Fourth assembly district. All of the following territory constitutes the 4th assembly district:

4.04(1)(1) Brown County. That part of Brown County consisting of all of the following:

4.04(1)(a)(a) The village of Suamico.

4.04(1)(b)(b) That part of the village of Howard located in the county.

4.04(1)(c)(c) That part of the city of Green Bay comprising U.S. census tract 940002, blocks 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2018, 2019, and 2020; and tract 940003, blocks 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1012, and 1013.

4.04(2)(2) Oconto County. That part of Oconto County consisting of all of the following:

4.04(2)(a)(a) The towns of Abrams, Lena, Little River, Little Suamico, Maple Valley, Oconto, Oconto Falls, Pensaukee, Spruce, and Stiles.

4.04(2)(b)(b) The village of Lena.

4.04(2)(c)(c) The cities of Oconto and Oconto Falls.

4.04(3)(3) Outagamie County. That part of Outagamie County consisting of that part of the village of Howard located in the county.

4.04 HistoryHistory: 2023 a. 94.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Hillis v. Waukesha Title Co., Inc., 576 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D. Wis. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hillis v. Waukesha Title Co., Inc., 576 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D. Wis. 1983). · cites it 24× “Among the specific Plan provisions was Section 4.04 which covered benefit forfeitures.”

Dowhower v. West Bend Mut. Ins., 2000 WI 73 (Wis. 2000). · cites it 2× “The two provisions taken together are inconsistent with other sections of West Bend's policy. ¶ 47. Even people who do read their insurance policies often do not understand these contracts.”

St. Joan Antida High Sch., Inc. v. Milwaukee Pub. Sch. Dist., 293 F. Supp. 3d 813 (E.D. Wis. 2018). · cites it 14× “That section provides a more generous busing scheme than section 4.04(2)(b), which applies to private school students.”

Brown v. Ret. Comm. of Briggs & Stratton Ret. Plan, 575 F. Supp. 1073 (E.D. Wis. 1983). · cites it 2× “Section 4.04 of the plan provides that an employee is eligible for disability benefits “.”

Rekowski v. Metro. Life Ins., 417 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (W.D. Wis. 2006). · cites it 2× “, Handbook on ERISA Litigation § 4.04[C][5][a] (2d ed.2005). To warrant reversal, an administrator’s decision must be “downright unreasonable.”

Olson v. Comfort Sys. USA Short Term Disability Plan, 407 F. Supp. 2d 995 (W.D. Wis. 2005). “, Handbook on ERISA Litigation § 4.04[C][2] (2d ed. Supp.2005) (“The requisite grant of discretion .”

Risch v. Waukesha Title Co., Inc., 588 F. Supp. 69 (E.D. Wis. 1984). “1976 Plan § 4.04 Any Participant who leaves the Employer’s Service with less than ten (10) years of vesting schedule service and who, within one (1) year of such termination, directly or indirectly aids a competitor of the company as an employee, shareholder, partner,…”

M. Bryce & Assocs., Inc. v. Gladstone, 319 N.W.2d 907 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). “See 1 Nimmer on Copyright, supra, at § 4.04. In order to mitigate the harsh rule that publication divests common-law rights, courts evolved a distinction between a “general publication” and a “limited publication.”

Thomas G. Zeal v. Ron Hill Estates Architectural Control (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 7× “Specifically, the neighbors argue that covenant § 4.04, entitled “Driveways,” supports their interpretation of the attached garage covenant.”

Stephan B. Nordstrom v. Steven G. Kane, 2021 WI App 71 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “, LAND DIVISION ORDINANCE § 4.04. Neither party argues that the inclusion of this additional section in Chapter 4 of the Land Division Ordinance is relevant to our analysis.”

Legend Lake Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Guy Keshena, 2026 WI 21 (Wis. 2026). “16 The Association’s argument about an immovable property exception is based on the flawed premise that the Keshena lots are exclusively within the territory and jurisdiction of another sovereign, namely the state of Wisconsin.”

— Wis. Stat. § 4.04(2)(b) — 1 case

St. Joan Antida High Sch., Inc. v. Milwaukee Pub. Sch. Dist., 293 F. Supp. 3d 813 (E.D. Wis. 2018). “That section provides a more generous busing scheme than section 4.04(2)(b), which applies to private school students.”

— Wis. Stat. § 4.04(5)(a) — 1 case

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.