Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 59 — COUNTIES
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 59.76 (2026)

Registration of farms

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
59.7659.76 Registration of farms. The owner of any farm or country estate, or that person’s authorized agent, may register the name of the farm or estate in the office of the register of deeds of the county in which the farm or estate is situated. The owner or purchaser of the farm or any part of the farm may change or release the name from that person’s respective interest in the farm by recording a certificate stating that the original registered name is released. A new name of the farm or any parts of the farm may then be registered. Every register of deeds shall index all registrations of farm documents and make the index available upon request. The index shall contain the name of the owner of the farm or estate and the name for the farm or estate that the owner or agent may designate, if no other farm or estate in the county has been previously registered under the same name. The fee for recording an instrument under this subsection shall be the fee specified under s. 59.43 (2) (ag).
59.76 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 211; 1981 c. 245; 1991 a. 316; 1993 a. 301; 1995 a. 201 s. 463; Stats. 1995 s. 59.76; 2017 a. 102.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1931–2001 · leading case: Armes v. Kenosha Cnty., 260 N.W.2d 515 (Wis. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Armes v. Kenosha Cnty., 260 N.W.2d 515 (Wis. 1977). · cites it 9× “The principal issue on appeal is whether under sec. 59.76, Stats. 1 a claimant may commence an action against the county more than six months after the actual disallowance of the claim by the county board but within six months after the adjournment of the next annual session of…”
Colby v. Columbia Cnty., 550 N.W.2d 124 (Wis. 1996). · cites it 6× “(1) No action shall be brought or maintained against a county upon any account, demand or cause of action .”
Willow Creek Ranch, L.L.C. v. Town of Shelby, 2000 WI 56 (Wis. 2000). · cites it 4× “The new legislation tied eight then-existing statutes, namely, Wis. Stat. §§ 59.76 , 59.77(1), 60.36, 62.”
Yotvat v. Roth, 290 N.W.2d 524 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “Armes held that where sec. 59.76, Stats. 1971, applied, a complaint must have shown compliance with the statute to state a cause of action.”
Rabe v. Outagamie Cnty., 241 N.W.2d 428 (Wis. 1976). · cites it 4× “Schwartz , however, clearly distinguished this procedure from the mechanics of conformance with sec. 59.76, Stats. The county claims statute reads “No action shall *499 be brought or maintained” without a claim being filed and disallowed.”
City of Racine v. Waste Facility Siting Bd., 575 N.W.2d 712 (Wis. 1998). · cites it 4× “, Wis. Stat. § 59.76 (1975). An early draft of the 1977 statute maintained the application to tort actions and provided, for example, that "no action shall be brought or maintained against a city upon a claim or cause of action when the only relief demandable is a judgment for…”
Shannon v. City of Milwaukee, 289 N.W.2d 564 (Wis. 1980). · cites it 3× “76 and clearly indicates the legislature’s intent to provide protection to the employee as well as the municipality.”
Gonzalez v. Teskey, 465 N.W.2d 525 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Unlike Rabe where sec. 59.76, Stats. (1973), precluded an action only against a county, the language of sec.”
Raube v. Christenson, 70 N.W.2d 639 (Wis. 1955). · cites it 5× “Sec. 59.76, Stats., provides in part: “(1) No action shall be brought or maintained against a county upon any account, demand, or cause of action when the only relief demandable is a judgment for money, .”
Robinson v. Kunach, 251 N.W.2d 449 (Wis. 1977). · cites it 2× “, requiring notice in tort actions against governmental subdivisions and officers 24 and with sec. 59.76, Stats., requiring presentation of a claim for money damages to a county board prior to instituting court action.”
Ocasio v. Froedtert Mem'l Lutheran Hosp., 2001 WI App 264 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “80 and its predecessor, Wis. Stat. § 59.76 . In Snopek , the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against a hospital owned by Walworth County.”
Colby v. Columbia Cnty., 531 N.W.2d 404 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “unless such claim shall have been duly presented to such board and they shall have failed to act upon the same within the time fixed by law.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 59.76(1) — 4 cases
Gonzalez v. Teskey, 465 N.W.2d 525 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “Unlike Rabe where sec. 59.76, Stats. (1973), precluded an action only against a county, the language of sec.”
Shannon v. City of Milwaukee, 289 N.W.2d 564 (Wis. 1980). “76 and clearly indicates the legislature’s intent to provide protection to the employee as well as the municipality.”
Robinson v. Kunach, 251 N.W.2d 449 (Wis. 1977). “, requiring notice in tort actions against governmental subdivisions and officers 24 and with sec. 59.76, Stats., requiring presentation of a claim for money damages to a county board prior to instituting court action.”
Colby v. Columbia Cnty., 531 N.W.2d 404 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “unless such claim shall have been duly presented to such board and they shall have failed to act upon the same within the time fixed by law.”
— Wis. Stat. § 59.76(2) — 1 case
Armes v. Kenosha Cnty., 260 N.W.2d 515 (Wis. 1977). “The principal issue on appeal is whether under sec. 59.76, Stats. 1 a claimant may commence an action against the county more than six months after the actual disallowance of the claim by the county board but within six months after the adjournment of the next annual session of…”
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.