Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 62.25 (2026)
Claims and actions
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
62.25(1)(1) Claims. No action may be brought or maintained against a city upon a claim or cause of action unless the claimant complies with s. 893.80. This subsection does not apply to actions commenced under s. 19.37, 19.97 or 281.99.
62.25(2)(a)(a) Damages, if any, in an action against a city officer in the officer’s official capacity, except the action directly involve the title to the officer’s office, shall not be awarded against such officer, but may be awarded against the city.
62.25(2)(b)(b) In an action to restrain payment by a city for work performed or material furnished, the plaintiff shall give a bond conditioned for payment to the claimant, if the action is finally determined in the claimant’s favor, of damages caused by the delay, including expense incurred in the action, and interest. The bond shall be with 2 sureties to be approved by the court, and in an amount fixed by the court and sufficient to cover all probable damages.
62.25(2)(d)(d) No person shall be ineligible to sit as judge, justice or juror in an action to which the city is a party, by reason of being an inhabitant of the city.
62.25 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See s. 62.12 (8) as to filing claims and demands against the city.
62.25 AnnotationAn action against a municipality based on a filed “claim” that did not state a dollar amount must be dismissed. The fact that the city council denied the claim did not bar the defense. By purchasing liability insurance, the city did not waive the protection of the statute. Sambs v. Nowak, 47 Wis. 2d 158, 177 N.W.2d 144 (1970).
62.25 AnnotationSub. (1) is applicable to a counterclaim for money damages in a lawsuit commenced by a city. City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Civic Developments, Inc., 71 Wis. 2d 647, 239 N.W.2d 44 (1976).
62.25 AnnotationNothing in either this chapter or ch. 120 precludes a school board from qualifying as a proper “claimant” under this section. Joint School District No. 1 v. City of Chilton, 78 Wis. 2d 52, 253 N.W.2d 879 (1977).
62.25 AnnotationThis section does not apply to a claim for equitable relief. Kaiser v. City of Mauston, 99 Wis. 2d 345, 299 N.W.2d 259 (Ct. App. 1980).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1924–2026 · leading case: Sambs v. Nowak, 177 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. 1970).
Sambs v. Nowak, 177 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. 1970). “Was the plaintiff’s “notice of claim” sufficient to meet the requirements of sec. 62.25, Stats. ? 2. Is the city estopped from requiring compliance with sec.”
Gutter v. Seamandel, 308 N.W.2d 403 (Wis. 1981). “” The referenced sec. 62.25, Stats. 1975, is part of chapter 62, Stats.”
Willow Creek Ranch, L.L.C. v. Town of Shelby, 2000 WI 56 (Wis. 2000). “The defendants contended that the suit was barred by a failure to comply with the notice provision of Wis. Stat. § 62.25 (1), which was tied to then Wis.”
Bosin v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie R.R., 183 F. Supp. 820 (E.D. Wis. 1960). “25 is not a condition precedent to the inter-pleader of an alleged joint tort-feasor.”
Schwartz v. City of Milwaukee, 168 N.W.2d 107 (Wis. 1969). “The city argues no claim was filed and if what was filed constitutes a claim it was not timely in reference to the commencement of this action. On April 27, 1966, what was designated a “Notice of Claim” presumably under sec.”
Shannon v. City of Milwaukee, 289 N.W.2d 564 (Wis. 1980). “Any person, firm or corporation suffering any damage proximately resulting from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle owned and operated by any city, and which damage is occasioned by the operation of such motor vehicle in the performance of municipal business, may in the…”
Kaiser v. City of Mauston, 299 N.W.2d 259 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “*356 The defendants next argue that this action is barred by sec. 62.25(1), Stats., 18 which provides that no claim may be brought against a city unless written notice of the claim is given to the city within 120 days of the happening of the event that gives rise to the claim,…”
City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Civic Developments, Inc., 239 N.W.2d 44 (Wis. 1976). “Are the requested damages for increased costs and lost rents an incidental remedy to the principal equitable relief sought, and as such, is the claim filing requirement of sec. 62.25, Stats., inapplicable? 2. Is sec.”
Town of Burke v. City of Madison, 593 N.W.2d 822 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “The Town contends that the application of § 62.25(1), Stats., 2 to its challenges *621 to the annexation ordinances would serve no useful purpose and would frustrate the procedure established by the legislature to resolve contests to annexation in a timely and efficient manner.”
City of Racine v. Waste Facility Siting Bd., 575 N.W.2d 712 (Wis. 1998). “For example, Wis. Stat. § 62.25 (1) was *624 amended to read: "[n]o action may be brought or maintained against a city upon a claim or cause of action unless the claimant complies with s.”
Markweise v. Peck Foods Corp., 556 N.W.2d 326 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “Section 62.25(1), STATS., provides: "No action may be brought or maintained against a city upon a claim or cause of action unless the claimant complies with s.”
Pattermann v. City of Whitewater, 145 N.W.2d 705 (Wis. 1966). “Sec. 62.25, Stats., is a statute of long standing and sub.”
— Wis. Stat. § 62.25(1) — 14 cases
Kaiser v. City of Mauston, 299 N.W.2d 259 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “*356 The defendants next argue that this action is barred by sec. 62.25(1), Stats., 18 which provides that no claim may be brought against a city unless written notice of the claim is given to the city within 120 days of the happening of the event that gives rise to the claim,…”
Town of Burke v. City of Madison, 593 N.W.2d 822 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “The Town contends that the application of § 62.25(1), Stats., 2 to its challenges *621 to the annexation ordinances would serve no useful purpose and would frustrate the procedure established by the legislature to resolve contests to annexation in a timely and efficient manner.”
Markweise v. Peck Foods Corp., 556 N.W.2d 326 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “Section 62.25(1), STATS., provides: "No action may be brought or maintained against a city upon a claim or cause of action unless the claimant complies with s.”
Bosin v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie R.R., 183 F. Supp. 820 (E.D. Wis. 1960). “25 is not a condition precedent to the inter-pleader of an alleged joint tort-feasor.”
Kocinski v. Home Ins. Co., 433 N.W.2d 654 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).
— Wis. Stat. § 62.25(1)(c) — 1 case
Fisher Contracting Co. v. City of Plymouth, 398 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Wis. 1975).
— Wis. Stat. § 62.25(1)(e) — 2 cases
Radtke v. City of Milwaukee, 342 N.W.2d 435 (Wis. 1984).
Linstrom v. Christianson, 469 N.W.2d 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
— Wis. Stat. § 62.25(l)(e) — 1 case
Linstrom v. Christianson, 469 N.W.2d 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
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.