Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 45.02 (2026)
Eligibility for benefits
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
45.02(1)(1) Any person whose service on active duty with the U.S. armed forces or in forces incorporated as part of the U.S. armed forces makes that person eligible for general U.S. department of veterans affairs benefits shall be considered to have served under honorable conditions for purposes of this chapter.
45.02(2)(2) Except as provided in sub. (3) and s. 45.51 (6m), to be eligible for benefits under this chapter an applicant shall be a resident of and living in this state at the time of making application or the veteran from whom the applicant derives eligibility is deceased, and the veteran from whom eligibility is derived meets one of the following conditions:
45.02(2)(a)(a) His or her selective service local board, if any, and home of record at the time of entry or reentry into active service as shown on the veteran’s report of separation from the U.S. armed forces for a qualifying period were in this state.
45.02(2)(b)(b) The veteran was a resident of this state at the time of entry or reentry into active duty.
45.02(2)(c)(c) The veteran was a resident of this state for any consecutive 12-month period after entry or reentry into service and before the date of his or her application or death.
45.02(3)(3) Veterans who are otherwise eligible and who are serving on active duty in the U.S. armed forces need not be living in this state on the date of application to qualify for benefits from the department.
45.02(4)(4) If the department determines that a person applying for a benefit under this chapter meets the residency requirement under sub. (2) (c), the department may not require the person to reestablish that he or she meets that residency requirement when he or she later applies for any other benefit under this chapter that requires that residency.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1994–2003 · leading case: Forest Cnty. v. Goode, 579 N.W.2d 715 (Wis. 1998).
Forest Cnty. v. Goode, 579 N.W.2d 715 (Wis. 1998). “See 4 Ziegler, Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning, § 45.02[1][a] (4th ed. Supp. 1997): "An injunction is an equitable remedy which a court can use to compel compliance with an ordinance (an injunction mandatory in form) or to restrain a threatened or existing violation…”
Fox Ex Rel. Fricker v. Catholic Knights Ins. Soc'y, 2003 WI 87 (Wis. 2003). “2d 177 (1986) (language, legislative history, purpose, and object of statute all bear on the interpretation of a statute, and legislative intent is determined by considering the direction in which all of these different factors point).”
State v. Byers, 2003 WI 86 (Wis. 2003). “Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 45.02 (6th ed. 2000); Adrian Vermeule, The Cycles of Statutory Interpretation, 68 U.”
State v. Black, 526 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. 1994). “Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction § 45.02, at 6 (5th Ed. 1992). The majority's *661 application of the plain meaning rule is neither compelled by the language of sub.”
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.