Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 52.10 (2026)
Scope
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
52.10(1)(1) If an adult with a functional impairment decides voluntarily, without coercion, to enter into a supported decision-making agreement with a supporter, that adult may, in the agreement, authorize the supporter to do any of the following:
52.10(1)(a)(a) Provide supported decision-making to the adult with a functional impairment, including assistance in understanding the options, responsibilities, and consequences of that person’s life decisions, without making those decisions on behalf of that person.
52.10(1)(b)(b) Assist the adult with a functional impairment in accessing, collecting, and obtaining information that is relevant to a given life decision, including medical, psychological, financial, educational, or treatment records, from any person.
52.10(1)(c)(c) Assist the adult with a functional impairment in understanding the information described in par. (b).
52.10(1)(d)(d) Assist the adult with a functional impairment in communicating the adult’s decisions to appropriate persons.
52.10(2)(2) A supporter is not a surrogate decision maker for the adult with a functional impairment and does not have the authority to sign legal documents on behalf of the adult with a functional impairment or bind the adult with a functional impairment to a legal agreement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2022 · leading case: In RE DAVANIS v. Davanis, 392 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).
In RE DAVANIS v. Davanis, 392 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This action was commenced under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968) (RURESA), sec. 52.10, Stats. 1 Nancy Ann Davanis filed a summons and petition with a Wisconsin court requesting registration in Wisconsin of a California divorce judgment divorcing…”
In Re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz, 525 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Because RURESA is a uniform act which was in effect in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania during the relevant period, see § 52.10, Stats., 1983-84 and 42 Pa. Cons.”
Horch v. Ponik, 392 N.W.2d 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The major issue on appeal concerns the effect of an order eliminating all arrearages for support issued in connection with a Fond du Lac county divorce action upon a claim for support arrear-ages accumulated in a Waukesha county action under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal…”
State of Louisiana Ex Rel. Eaton v. Leis, 354 N.W.2d 209 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “This is an appeal from an order dismissing a case brought under sec. 52.10, Stats., Wisconsin's version of the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA).”
Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha, 2022 WI 57 (Wis. 2022). “, Wis. Stat. § 52.10 (6)(c) (1981-82) ("If proceedings 10 have been initiated and the person demanded has prevailed therein the governor may decline to honor the demand.”
State Ex Rel. Hubbard v. Hubbard, 329 N.W.2d 202 (Wis. 1983). “Under the provisions of the URESA (sec. 52.10, Stats.), any person who believes he or she is owed a duty of support can institute a proceeding in a court in his or her home state (initiating state) to establish and/or enforce a support obligation against another person located…”
Tensfeldt v. Haberman, 2009 WI 77 (Wis. 2009). “Therefore, the majority opinion's conclusion in this case will affect a dramatic sea change in Wisconsin, if the majority opinion truly means to conclude that parties can expand the subject matter jurisdiction of a circuit court by agreement.”
Matson v. Matson, 310 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 1981). “52 (1980); Wis.Stat. § 52.10 (1980) (URESA), and obtained orders directing defendant to support his then minor children.”
Monson v. Monson, 271 N.W.2d 137 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978). “August 29, 1975, plaintiff registered the Minnesota judgment in Dane County, Wisconsin, as authorized by sec. 52.10(39), Stats. Sec. 52.10 is the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968) which we will refer to as RURESA.”
Nixon v. Nixon, 158 N.W.2d 919 (Wis. 1968). “Defendant suggests attachment 5 and a reciprocal support action (sec. 52.10, Stats.) as possible alternative remedies.”
Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha, 2022 WI 57 (Wis. 2022). “, Wis. Stat. § 52.10 (6)(c) (1981-82) ("If proceedings 10 have been initiated and the person demanded has prevailed therein the governor may decline to honor the demand.”
In Re Marriage of Hubanks v. Hubanks, 555 N.W.2d 647 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The corresponding RURESA provision in Wisconsin was then contained in § 52.10(31), Stats., 1975 which stated in relevant part: A support order made by a court of this state .”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(1) — 5 cases
In RE DAVANIS v. Davanis, 392 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This action was commenced under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968) (RURESA), sec. 52.10, Stats. 1 Nancy Ann Davanis filed a summons and petition with a Wisconsin court requesting registration in Wisconsin of a California divorce judgment divorcing…”
State of Louisiana Ex Rel. Eaton v. Leis, 354 N.W.2d 209 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “This is an appeal from an order dismissing a case brought under sec. 52.10, Stats., Wisconsin's version of the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA).”
In Re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz, 525 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Because RURESA is a uniform act which was in effect in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania during the relevant period, see § 52.10, Stats., 1983-84 and 42 Pa. Cons.”
State Ex Rel. Hubbard v. Hubbard, 329 N.W.2d 202 (Wis. 1983). “Under the provisions of the URESA (sec. 52.10, Stats.), any person who believes he or she is owed a duty of support can institute a proceeding in a court in his or her home state (initiating state) to establish and/or enforce a support obligation against another person located…”
Horch v. Ponik, 392 N.W.2d 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The major issue on appeal concerns the effect of an order eliminating all arrearages for support issued in connection with a Fond du Lac county divorce action upon a claim for support arrear-ages accumulated in a Waukesha county action under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal…”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(11) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz, 525 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Because RURESA is a uniform act which was in effect in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania during the relevant period, see § 52.10, Stats., 1983-84 and 42 Pa. Cons.”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(13) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz, 525 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Because RURESA is a uniform act which was in effect in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania during the relevant period, see § 52.10, Stats., 1983-84 and 42 Pa. Cons.”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(14) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz, 525 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Because RURESA is a uniform act which was in effect in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania during the relevant period, see § 52.10, Stats., 1983-84 and 42 Pa. Cons.”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(18)(b) — 1 case
Horch v. Ponik, 392 N.W.2d 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The major issue on appeal concerns the effect of an order eliminating all arrearages for support issued in connection with a Fond du Lac county divorce action upon a claim for support arrear-ages accumulated in a Waukesha county action under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal…”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(19) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz, 525 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Because RURESA is a uniform act which was in effect in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania during the relevant period, see § 52.10, Stats., 1983-84 and 42 Pa. Cons.”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(2) — 3 cases
State of Louisiana Ex Rel. Eaton v. Leis, 354 N.W.2d 209 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “This is an appeal from an order dismissing a case brought under sec. 52.10, Stats., Wisconsin's version of the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA).”
In RE DAVANIS v. Davanis, 392 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This action was commenced under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968) (RURESA), sec. 52.10, Stats. 1 Nancy Ann Davanis filed a summons and petition with a Wisconsin court requesting registration in Wisconsin of a California divorce judgment divorcing…”
Horch v. Ponik, 392 N.W.2d 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The major issue on appeal concerns the effect of an order eliminating all arrearages for support issued in connection with a Fond du Lac county divorce action upon a claim for support arrear-ages accumulated in a Waukesha county action under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal…”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(2)(f) — 2 cases
In RE DAVANIS v. Davanis, 392 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This action was commenced under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968) (RURESA), sec. 52.10, Stats. 1 Nancy Ann Davanis filed a summons and petition with a Wisconsin court requesting registration in Wisconsin of a California divorce judgment divorcing…”
In Re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz, 525 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Because RURESA is a uniform act which was in effect in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania during the relevant period, see § 52.10, Stats., 1983-84 and 42 Pa. Cons.”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(24) — 1 case
State of Louisiana Ex Rel. Eaton v. Leis, 354 N.W.2d 209 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “This is an appeal from an order dismissing a case brought under sec. 52.10, Stats., Wisconsin's version of the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA).”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(25) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz, 525 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Because RURESA is a uniform act which was in effect in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania during the relevant period, see § 52.10, Stats., 1983-84 and 42 Pa. Cons.”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(27) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Hubbard v. Hubbard, 329 N.W.2d 202 (Wis. 1983). “Under the provisions of the URESA (sec. 52.10, Stats.), any person who believes he or she is owed a duty of support can institute a proceeding in a court in his or her home state (initiating state) to establish and/or enforce a support obligation against another person located…”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(3) — 2 cases
In Re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz, 525 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Because RURESA is a uniform act which was in effect in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania during the relevant period, see § 52.10, Stats., 1983-84 and 42 Pa. Cons.”
Horch v. Ponik, 392 N.W.2d 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The major issue on appeal concerns the effect of an order eliminating all arrearages for support issued in connection with a Fond du Lac county divorce action upon a claim for support arrear-ages accumulated in a Waukesha county action under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal…”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(31) — 3 cases
In Re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz, 525 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Because RURESA is a uniform act which was in effect in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania during the relevant period, see § 52.10, Stats., 1983-84 and 42 Pa. Cons.”
Horch v. Ponik, 392 N.W.2d 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The major issue on appeal concerns the effect of an order eliminating all arrearages for support issued in connection with a Fond du Lac county divorce action upon a claim for support arrear-ages accumulated in a Waukesha county action under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal…”
In Re Marriage of Hubanks v. Hubanks, 555 N.W.2d 647 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The corresponding RURESA provision in Wisconsin was then contained in § 52.10(31), Stats., 1975 which stated in relevant part: A support order made by a court of this state .”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(32) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Hubbard v. Hubbard, 329 N.W.2d 202 (Wis. 1983). “Under the provisions of the URESA (sec. 52.10, Stats.), any person who believes he or she is owed a duty of support can institute a proceeding in a court in his or her home state (initiating state) to establish and/or enforce a support obligation against another person located…”
In RE DAVANIS v. Davanis, 392 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This action was commenced under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968) (RURESA), sec. 52.10, Stats. 1 Nancy Ann Davanis filed a summons and petition with a Wisconsin court requesting registration in Wisconsin of a California divorce judgment divorcing…”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(34) — 1 case
Horch v. Ponik, 392 N.W.2d 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The major issue on appeal concerns the effect of an order eliminating all arrearages for support issued in connection with a Fond du Lac county divorce action upon a claim for support arrear-ages accumulated in a Waukesha county action under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal…”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(39) — 3 cases
Monson v. Monson, 271 N.W.2d 137 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978). “August 29, 1975, plaintiff registered the Minnesota judgment in Dane County, Wisconsin, as authorized by sec. 52.10(39), Stats. Sec. 52.10 is the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968) which we will refer to as RURESA.”
Horch v. Ponik, 392 N.W.2d 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The major issue on appeal concerns the effect of an order eliminating all arrearages for support issued in connection with a Fond du Lac county divorce action upon a claim for support arrear-ages accumulated in a Waukesha county action under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal…”
In RE DAVANIS v. Davanis, 392 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This action was commenced under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968) (RURESA), sec. 52.10, Stats. 1 Nancy Ann Davanis filed a summons and petition with a Wisconsin court requesting registration in Wisconsin of a California divorce judgment divorcing…”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(39)(a) — 1 case
In RE DAVANIS v. Davanis, 392 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This action was commenced under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968) (RURESA), sec. 52.10, Stats. 1 Nancy Ann Davanis filed a summons and petition with a Wisconsin court requesting registration in Wisconsin of a California divorce judgment divorcing…”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(40)(a) — 1 case
In RE DAVANIS v. Davanis, 392 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This action was commenced under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968) (RURESA), sec. 52.10, Stats. 1 Nancy Ann Davanis filed a summons and petition with a Wisconsin court requesting registration in Wisconsin of a California divorce judgment divorcing…”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(40)(b) — 1 case
In RE DAVANIS v. Davanis, 392 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This action was commenced under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968) (RURESA), sec. 52.10, Stats. 1 Nancy Ann Davanis filed a summons and petition with a Wisconsin court requesting registration in Wisconsin of a California divorce judgment divorcing…”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(40)(c) — 1 case
In RE DAVANIS v. Davanis, 392 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This action was commenced under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (1968) (RURESA), sec. 52.10, Stats. 1 Nancy Ann Davanis filed a summons and petition with a Wisconsin court requesting registration in Wisconsin of a California divorce judgment divorcing…”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(41) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz, 525 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Because RURESA is a uniform act which was in effect in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania during the relevant period, see § 52.10, Stats., 1983-84 and 42 Pa. Cons.”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(7) — 1 case
State of Louisiana Ex Rel. Eaton v. Leis, 354 N.W.2d 209 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “This is an appeal from an order dismissing a case brought under sec. 52.10, Stats., Wisconsin's version of the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA).”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(8) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz, 525 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Because RURESA is a uniform act which was in effect in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania during the relevant period, see § 52.10, Stats., 1983-84 and 42 Pa. Cons.”
— Wis. Stat. § 52.10(9) — 1 case
Horch v. Ponik, 392 N.W.2d 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The major issue on appeal concerns the effect of an order eliminating all arrearages for support issued in connection with a Fond du Lac county divorce action upon a claim for support arrear-ages accumulated in a Waukesha county action under the Revised Uniform Reciprocal…”
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.