Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 753 — CIRCUIT COURTS
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 753.19 (2026)

Operating costs; circuit court

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
753.19753.19 Operating costs; circuit court. The cost of operation of the circuit court for each county, except for the salaries of judges and court reporters provided to be paid by the state, and except for the cost assumed by the state under this chapter and chs. 40 and 230, and except as otherwise provided, shall be paid by the county.
753.19 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 81; 1975 c. 126, 199; 1977 c. 187 ss. 92, 135; 1977 c. 449; Stats. 1977 s. 753.19; 1981 c. 96.
753.19 AnnotationThe county in which proceedings are brought must pay the fee of an appointed guardian ad litem. Romasko v. City of Milwaukee, 108 Wis. 2d 32, 321 N.W.2d 123 (1982).
753.19 AnnotationServices of appointed counsel for non-indigent individuals in civil commitment hearings should be paid for by the county. State ex rel. Chiarkas v. Skow, 160 Wis. 2d 123, 465 N.W.2d 625 (1991).
753.19 AnnotationThe state public defender, not the county, was obligated to pay the costs of necessary expert witnesses hired by an appointed private attorney without prior approval as required by rule. Brown County v. State Public Defender, 167 Wis. 2d 168, 482 N.W.2d 665 (Ct. App. 1992).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: State v. Campbell, 2006 WI 99 (Wis. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Campbell, 2006 WI 99 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 18× “In Lehman , this court agreed that, with the exception of Wis. Stat. § 753.19 , [7] no other statutory provision provides for the payment of the fees for standby counsel.”
Romasko v. City of Milwaukee, 321 N.W.2d 123 (Wis. 1982). · cites it 14× “The court of appeals also disposed of Feldner's reliance on sec. 753.19, Stats., because, it concluded, that section details only the manner of providing the courts of Milwaukee with equipment and personnel for the operation of the courts.”
Douglas Cnty. v. Edwards, 403 N.W.2d 438 (Wis. 1987). · cites it 7× “ministrative rules of the Public Defender Board?; 2) If the court has such inherent power, does the court have the authority to appoint an attorney for this position that is not licensed to practice in the State of Wisconsin?; 3) Are the *68 reasonable attorney fees of…”
State Ex Rel. Chiarkas v. Skow, 465 N.W.2d 625 (Wis. 1991). · cites it 10× “We also concluded that these fees were operating costs of the court under sec. 753.19, Stats. 1979-80, [9] because services of a guardian ad litem were services to the court.”
POLK COUNTRY v. State Pub. Def., 524 N.W.2d 389 (Wis. 1994). · cites it 2× “n over the SPD since no process was served upon the agency; (3) sovereign immunity precludes the court from ordering the expenditure of funds by the SPD; (4) the court has the inherent authority to appoint and order payment of expert witness fees; and (5) the payment of the…”
Cnty. of Door v. Hayes-Brook, 449 N.W.2d 601 (Wis. 1990). · cites it 4× “Newman is indigent for purposes of these proceedings since all his assets are encumbered and whatever exempt properties he may declare in bankruptcy court are not available to him.”
Payment of Witness Fees in State v. Huisman, 482 N.W.2d 665 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “The circuit court reasoned that because none of the exceptions to the county's responsibility for costs of operation of the circuit court under sec. 753.19, Stats., applied, the county was responsible for payment of the fees.”
Polk Cnty. v. State Pub. Def., 507 N.W.2d 576 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “After comparing sec. 753.19, Stats., to sec. 977.05(4)(h) and (i), we concluded that inherent in the SPD's duty to provide legal services under sec.”
State v. Nhia Lee, 2021 WI App 12 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 753.19. Edwards, 137 Wis. 2d at 82-83 .”
Warren v. Stone, 958 F.2d 1419 (7th Cir. 1992). “” Wis.Stat.Ann. § 753.19 (1981). *1425 At least one state has declared explicitly that PDO employees shall be considered Coúnty employees: “[Assistant public defenders, clerks] .”
State v. Brian T. Flatoff (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 753.19 (2023-24).2 Attorney Szilagyi thereafter served as standby counsel.”
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.