Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 8 — NOMINATIONS, PRIMARIES, ELECTIONS
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 8.06 (2026)

Special elections may be called

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
8.068.06 Special elections may be called. Towns, cities, villages, and, subject to ss. 67.05 (6a) (a) 2. and 121.91 (3) (a), school districts, may call special elections for any purpose authorized by law. If an election is called for a special referendum, the election shall be noticed under s. 8.55.
8.06 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 32; 1989 a. 192; 2017 a. 59.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Runzheimer Int'l, Ltd. v. David Friedlen, 2015 WI 45 (Wis. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Runzheimer Int'l, Ltd. v. David Friedlen, 2015 WI 45 (Wis. 2015). · cites it 4× “See Restatement (Third) of Employment Law, Proposed Final Draft § 8.06 cmt. e (2014) ("Continuing employment of an at-will employee is generally sufficient consideration to support the enforcement of an otherwise valid restrictive covenant.”
Propp v. Sauk Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2010 WI App 25 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 19× “692 (lv) (2007-08) 1 and Sauk County Shoreland Protection Ordinance § 8.06 (May 2003). 2 The Board contends the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the terms "floor area" and "structure" which appear in § 59.”
Split Pivot, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 987 F. Supp. 2d 838 (W.D. Wis. 2013). · cites it 2× “*863 Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 8.06[2], at 8-488 (2010) (“A trap for the unwary claim drafter using Markush group language is the severely closed nature of a Markush group.”
World Wide Prosthetic Supply, Inc. v. Mikulsky, 2001 WI App 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “6 See also Model JURY INSTRUCTIONS, BUSINESS TORTS LITIGATION, ABA Section of Litigation, § 8.06[1] (3d ed. 1996) ("If you find that plaintiff would have realized profits from employing trade secrets in its business that it has lost due to the wrongful conduct of defendant, then…”
Jersild v. Aker, 775 F. Supp. 1198 (E.D. Wis. 1991). · cites it 4× “It appears that counsel has directly violated the strictures of Local Rule 8, Section 8.06, which expressly prohibits such post-trial contacts between counsel and the discharged jurors, absent leave of the court, which was not even requested.”
State v. King, 354 N.W.2d 742 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “Cipes, Moore’s Federal Practice § 8.06(1), at 8-25 (2d ed. 1984). 5 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 144, at 502 (2d ed.”
United States v. Brown, 521 F. Supp. 511 (W.D. Wis. 1981). “8 Moore’s Federal Practice — Criminal Rules § 8.06(4), p. 8-43 (June 1980 revision). If there is variance in proof in the present case, the most that can likely be expected is the showing of two related conspiracies involving the same two defendants.”
Berg v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (In re Berg), 569 B.R. 755 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2017). “Kelley, Ginsburg & Martin on Bankruptcy, § 8.06[E] (5th Ed. Supp. 2016). “What happens between those two dates, or before or after them, is irrelevant.”
Olson v. City of La Crosse, 2015 WI App 67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 11× “, § 8.06(D)(1) (indicating that the "address" in the application is the street address of the dwelling or dwelling unit).”
Indep. Employees' Union of Hillshire Farm Co. v. Hillshire Farm Co., 638 F. Supp. 1154 (E.D. Wis. 1986). · cites it 4× “01 of the agreement recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees with respect to rates of pay, hours of work and conditions of employment; this provision applies specifically to rules regarding overtime pay and must take precedence over the provision…”
Deborah Schwartz Kravit v. William Murray Kravit (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “Moreover, under Section 8.06 of the trust: no individual Trustee who is also a current beneficiary of a trust hereunder shall participate in exercising any discretion as to whether or to what extent principal or income shall be distributed or applied to or for his or her own…”
Bentley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Wis. 2022). “The listings provide three non-exhaustive examples of extension skin lesions that result in a very serious limitation: (a) “lesions that interfere with the motion of your joints and that very seriously limit your use of more than one extremity”; (b) “lesions on the palms of both…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 8.06(1) — 1 case
State v. King, 354 N.W.2d 742 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “Cipes, Moore’s Federal Practice § 8.06(1), at 8-25 (2d ed. 1984). 5 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 144, at 502 (2d ed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 8.06(2) — 1 case
Propp v. Sauk Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2010 WI App 25 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “692 (lv) (2007-08) 1 and Sauk County Shoreland Protection Ordinance § 8.06 (May 2003). 2 The Board contends the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the terms "floor area" and "structure" which appear in § 59.”
— Wis. Stat. § 8.06(4) — 1 case
United States v. Brown, 521 F. Supp. 511 (W.D. Wis. 1981). “8 Moore’s Federal Practice — Criminal Rules § 8.06(4), p. 8-43 (June 1980 revision). If there is variance in proof in the present case, the most that can likely be expected is the showing of two related conspiracies involving the same two defendants.”
— Wis. Stat. § 8.06(6) — 1 case
Propp v. Sauk Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2010 WI App 25 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “692 (lv) (2007-08) 1 and Sauk County Shoreland Protection Ordinance § 8.06 (May 2003). 2 The Board contends the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the terms "floor area" and "structure" which appear in § 59.”
— Wis. Stat. § 8.06(6)(b) — 1 case
Propp v. Sauk Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2010 WI App 25 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “692 (lv) (2007-08) 1 and Sauk County Shoreland Protection Ordinance § 8.06 (May 2003). 2 The Board contends the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the terms "floor area" and "structure" which appear in § 59.”
— Wis. Stat. § 8.06(D)(1) — 1 case
Olson v. City of La Crosse, 2015 WI App 67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “, § 8.06(D)(1) (indicating that the "address" in the application is the street address of the dwelling or dwelling unit).”
— Wis. Stat. § 8.06(E) — 1 case
Olson v. City of La Crosse, 2015 WI App 67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “, § 8.06(D)(1) (indicating that the "address" in the application is the street address of the dwelling or dwelling unit).”
— Wis. Stat. § 8.06(E)(2) — 1 case
Olson v. City of La Crosse, 2015 WI App 67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “, § 8.06(D)(1) (indicating that the "address" in the application is the street address of the dwelling or dwelling unit).”
— Wis. Stat. § 8.06(E)(3) — 1 case
Olson v. City of La Crosse, 2015 WI App 67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “, § 8.06(D)(1) (indicating that the "address" in the application is the street address of the dwelling or dwelling unit).”
— Wis. Stat. § 8.06(E)(4)(c) — 1 case
Olson v. City of La Crosse, 2015 WI App 67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “, § 8.06(D)(1) (indicating that the "address" in the application is the street address of the dwelling or dwelling unit).”
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.