Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 4.26 (2026)
Twenty-sixth 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
4.264.26 Twenty-sixth assembly district. All of the following territory in Sheboygan County constitutes the 26th assembly district:
4.26(2)(2) That part of the town of Sheboygan comprising U.S. census tract 100, blocks 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2010; and tract 202, blocks 1001, 1002, 1003, 1005, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1020, and 1032; and tract 300, blocks 1001, 1002, 1003, 1006, 1008, 3001, 3014, 3015, 3016, 3017, 4001, 4003, 4006, 4007, 4008, 4010, 4011, 4016, 4021, 4026, 4027, 4028, 4030, and 4031; and tract 400, blocks 1020, 1022, 1025, 1027, 1028, 1030, 1032, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1051, 1053, 2022, 2023, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2033, 2037, 2053, 2055, 2056, 2057, 2058, 2059, 2061, 2063, 2069, 2070, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077, 2078, 2079, 2083, 2084, 2094, 2096, and 2099; and tract 900, blocks 3003, 3004, 3005, 3009, 3016, 3019, 3020, 3021, 3022, 3023, 3025, 3026, 3040, 3041, 3048, 3049, 3051, 3053, 3056, 3057, 3058, 3059, 3098, and 3100; and tract 1000, blocks 2006 and 2007; and tract 10700, blocks 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1029, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1035, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1043, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1071, 1074, 1075, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2108, 2109, 2110, 3000, 3001, 3002, 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, 3014, 3015, 3016, 3017, 3018, 3019, 3020, 3021, 3022, 3023, 3024, 3025, 3026, 3027, 3028, and 3029.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1994–1997 · leading case: Nischke v. Farmers & Merchants Bank & Trust, 522 N.W.2d 542 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
Nischke v. Farmers & Merchants Bank & Trust, 522 N.W.2d 542 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “WHITMAN, REAL ESTATE FINANCE LAW § 4.26 (3d ed. 1993). However, these cases are distinguishable on their facts.”
Rozema v. Marshfield Clinic, 174 F.R.D. 425 (W.D. Wis. 1997). “” 1 Newberg & Conte § 4.26, at 104. I expect that any evidence of fraudulent concealment and circumstances triggering the duty of due diligence would be common to the class.”
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.