Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 53.03 (2026)

International application

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
53.0353.03International application. A court of this state may treat a foreign country as if it were a state for the purpose of applying this subchapter and subchs. II, III, and V.
Loading...
Loading...
× Details for
PDF view
Link (Permanent link)
Bookmark this location
View toggle
Go to top of document

Search in this chapter
Search in this section
Search in this agency
Search in this chapter group
Search in this chapter
Search in this section
Cross references for section
Acts affecting this section
References to this
1970 Statutes Annotations
Appellate Court Citations
Administrative Code Index

Reference lines
Clear highlighting
53.03 HistoryHistory: 2017 a. 187.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2017–2024 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Universal Processing Servs., LLC v. Circuit Court of Milwaukee Cnty., 2017 WI 26 (Wis. 2017).
State Ex Rel. Universal Processing Servs., LLC v. Circuit Court of Milwaukee Cnty., 2017 WI 26 (Wis. 2017). “Spero, Moore's Federal Practice § 53.03[3], n.13 (3d ed. 2016). Courts have expressed concern over the appointment of masters to consider dispositive pretrial motions.”
Sojenhomer LLC v. Vill. of Egg Harbor, 2024 WI 25 (Wis. 2024). “§ 53.03 , which states that Wisconsin courts "may treat a foreign country as if it were a state" in guardianship proceedings.”
Sojenhomer LLC v. Vill. of Egg Harbor, 2024 WI 25 (Wis. 2024). “§ 53.03 , which states that Wisconsin courts "may treat a foreign country as if it were a state" in guardianship proceedings.”
Universal Processing Servs. v. Circuit Court of Milw. Co. (Wis. 2017). “Spero, Moore's Federal Practice § 53.03[3], n.13 (3d ed. 2016). Courts have expressed concern over the appointment of masters to consider dispositive pretrial motions.”
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.