Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 8.03 (2026)
Multiple nominations
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
8.03(1)(1) The name of any candidate who is nominated to the same office by more than one party or primary or nominated for more than one partisan or state nonpartisan office shall appear under the party first nominating him or her or under the office to which he or she was first nominated. If the double nomination is simultaneous, the candidate who is nominated, before the deadline for filing nomination papers shall file a written statement with the same person with whom he or she files nomination papers stating the person’s party or office preference. If the candidate fails to select the party or office, the filing officer shall place the candidate’s name on the ballot under either party or office, but may not permit it to appear more than once. If a candidate is nominated at a primary election for partisan office or nonpartisan state office on a ballot where his or her name appears or by nomination papers filed by the candidate, and is also nominated by write-in votes at the primary election to another office, or to the same office as the candidate of a different party, the candidate does not have a choice, but shall be placed on the ballot for the election under the office and party for which the candidate’s name appeared on the primary ballot or for which the candidate had filed nomination papers.
8.03(2)(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply when a candidate for the office of president or vice president of the United States is nominated for another elective office during the same election. If the candidate is elected president or vice president of the United States such election shall void the candidate’s election to any other office. A special election shall be held to fill any office vacated under this subsection.
8.03(2m)(2m) A candidate may appear on the ballot for more than one local nonpartisan office at the same election.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1939–2025 · leading case: Nelson v. Nelson Hardware, Inc., 467 N.W.2d 518 (Wis. 1991).
Nelson v. Nelson Hardware, Inc., 467 N.W.2d 518 (Wis. 1991). “Vargo, Products Liability Practice Guide, § 8.03(2) at 8-30 (1990). The majority would apparently assert that used goods sellers should simply purchase insurance coverage against possible strict product liability claims that might be brought against such sellers.”
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Wausau Chem. Corp., 809 F. Supp. 680 (W.D. Wis. 1992). “The majority of courts addressing this issue have held that costs incurred when an insured engages voluntarily in cleanup activities in advance of litigation are covered under comprehensive general liability policies.”
Matter of Woods, 59 B.R. 221 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1986). “It is clear under the plan agreement that the assets of the plan are derived from employee and matching employer contributions.”
Carney v. White, 843 F. Supp. 462 (E.D. Wis. 1994). “Newman, Handbook on Insurance Coverage Disputes § 8.03[b] (5th ed. 1992). If *476 an insured knew or should have known that there was a “substantial probability” that certain results would follow from his acts or omissions, there is no “occurrence” within the meaning of a…”
United States v. Brown, 521 F. Supp. 511 (W.D. Wis. 1981). “8 Moore’s Federal Practice— Criminal Rules § 8.03[1], pp. 8-6 — 8-7 (June, 1980 revision).”
Stephan B. Nordstrom v. Steven G. Kane, 2021 WI App 71 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “, LAND DIVISION ORDINANCE § 8.03 (2019) (defining the term “site condominium”); WIS.”
Meadows v. United States (E.D. Wis. 2025). “2001)); 2 FEDERAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW § 8.03 (“In 1979 . . . the Supreme Court held that a mere formal or technical violation of Rule 11 in the taking of a guilty plea could not be collaterally attacked.”
Hauerwas v. Zimmerman, 284 N.W. 51 (Wis. 1939). “The petitioners further state that demand has been made upon the secretary of state to- call such special election pursuant to the provisions of sec. 8.03, Stats., which demand has been refused by the secretary of state upon the ground that the attorney general of the state of…”
— Wis. Stat. § 8.03(2) — 1 case
Nelson v. Nelson Hardware, Inc., 467 N.W.2d 518 (Wis. 1991). “Vargo, Products Liability Practice Guide, § 8.03(2) at 8-30 (1990). The majority would apparently assert that used goods sellers should simply purchase insurance coverage against possible strict product liability claims that might be brought against such sellers.”
— Wis. Stat. § 8.03(c) — 1 case
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Wausau Chem. Corp., 809 F. Supp. 680 (W.D. Wis. 1992). “The majority of courts addressing this issue have held that costs incurred when an insured engages voluntarily in cleanup activities in advance of litigation are covered under comprehensive general liability policies.”
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.