Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 59.02 (2026)
Powers, how exercised; quorum
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
59.02(1)(1) The powers of a county as a body corporate can only be exercised by the board, or in pursuance of a resolution adopted or ordinance enacted by the board.
59.02(2)(2) Ordinances may be enacted and resolutions may be adopted by a majority vote of a quorum or by such larger vote as may be required by law. Ordinances shall commence as follows: “The county board of supervisors of the county of .... does ordain as follows”.
59.02(3)(3) A majority of the supervisors who are entitled to a seat on the board shall constitute a quorum. All questions shall be determined by a majority of the supervisors who are present unless otherwise provided.
59.02 AnnotationThe county board’s failure to use the prescribed language of sub. (2) did not invalidate the ordinance. Cross v. Soderbeck, 94 Wis. 2d 331, 288 N.W.2d 779 (1980).
59.02 AnnotationA supervisor who is required to abstain is not “present” for calculating the number of votes required for passage. Ballenger v. Door County, 131 Wis. 2d 422, 388 N.W.2d 624 (Ct. App. 1986).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2023 · leading case: Hocking v. City of Dodgeville, 2009 WI 70 (Wis. 2009).
Hocking v. City of Dodgeville, 2009 WI 70 (Wis. 2009). “Beck, Waters and Water Rights § 59.02(b) (1991 ed., repl. vol. 2006). "Over the past sixty years, many states have shifted from the common enemy and civil law rules to the reasonable use rule.”
Cross v. Soderbeck, 288 N.W.2d 779 (Wis. 1980). “The answer to this question depends upon whether sec. 59.02, Stats., is mandatory or directory.”
Haka v. Lincoln Cnty., 533 F. Supp. 2d 895 (W.D. Wis. 2008). “51 (2), which says that “the board may represent the county, have the management of the business and concerns of the county in all cases where no other provision is made, apportion and levy taxes and appropriate money to carry into effect any of the board’s powers and duties.”
James Hulbert v. Richard Wilhelm, 120 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 1997). “Wis. Stat. § 59.02 . Under this law, County corporation may exercise its powers either through the county board or by others acting under a resolution or ordinance of the board.”
State Ex Rel. Milwaukee Cnty. v. Boos, 99 N.W.2d 139 (Wis. 1959). “Sec. 59.02, Stats., provides: "(1) The powers of a county as a body corporate can only be exercised by the board thereof, or in pursuance of a resolution or ordinance adopted by it.”
Ballenger v. Door Cnty., 388 N.W.2d 624 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “See sec. 59.02(3), Stats. At this *430 meeting, ten supervisors voted for passage of the ordinance, nine supervisors voted against it, and one supervisor abstained from voting.”
Schmidt v. Lincoln Cnty., State of Wisconsin, 249 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (W.D. Wis. 2003). “See Wis. Stat. § 59.02 (1999-2000) (“The powers of a county as a body corporate can only be exercised by the board, or in pursuance of a resolution adopted or ordinance enacted by the board.”
Kish v. Cnty. of Milwaukee, 48 F.R.D. 102 (E.D. Wis. 1969). “In the case at bar, the board is granted the authority to exercise the powers of the county by Wis.Stat. § 59.02. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the board is a unit of government which cannot be sued under § 1983.”
Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Outagamie Cnty., 2008 WI App 75 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “See Wis. Stat. § 59.02 (2) (process for adopting ordinances) and Wis.”
Hove, Nancy v. Pierce Cnty. (W.D. Wis. 2023). “Wis. Stat. § 59.02 (1), (2). So for Hove’s claim to succeed, she cannot simply rely on Holst and Aubart’s biased comments to show the Board’s discriminatory motive; she must have a plausible theory to show that the Board’s unanimous vote to reorganize the dispatch employees was…”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.02(2) — 1 case
Cross v. Soderbeck, 288 N.W.2d 779 (Wis. 1980). “The answer to this question depends upon whether sec. 59.02, Stats., is mandatory or directory.”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.02(3) — 1 case
Ballenger v. Door Cnty., 388 N.W.2d 624 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “See sec. 59.02(3), Stats. At this *430 meeting, ten supervisors voted for passage of the ordinance, nine supervisors voted against it, and one supervisor abstained from voting.”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.02(b) — 1 case
Hocking v. City of Dodgeville, 2009 WI 70 (Wis. 2009). “Beck, Waters and Water Rights § 59.02(b) (1991 ed., repl. vol. 2006). "Over the past sixty years, many states have shifted from the common enemy and civil law rules to the reasonable use rule.”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.02(b)(2) — 1 case
Hocking v. City of Dodgeville, 2009 WI 70 (Wis. 2009). “Beck, Waters and Water Rights § 59.02(b) (1991 ed., repl. vol. 2006). "Over the past sixty years, many states have shifted from the common enemy and civil law rules to the reasonable use rule.”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.02(b)(3) — 1 case
Hocking v. City of Dodgeville, 2009 WI 70 (Wis. 2009). “Beck, Waters and Water Rights § 59.02(b) (1991 ed., repl. vol. 2006). "Over the past sixty years, many states have shifted from the common enemy and civil law rules to the reasonable use rule.”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.02(b)(4) — 1 case
Hocking v. City of Dodgeville, 2009 WI 70 (Wis. 2009). “Beck, Waters and Water Rights § 59.02(b) (1991 ed., repl. vol. 2006). "Over the past sixty years, many states have shifted from the common enemy and civil law rules to the reasonable use rule.”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.02(b)(7) — 1 case
Hocking v. City of Dodgeville, 2009 WI 70 (Wis. 2009). “Beck, Waters and Water Rights § 59.02(b) (1991 ed., repl. vol. 2006). "Over the past sixty years, many states have shifted from the common enemy and civil law rules to the reasonable use rule.”
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.