Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 823.11 (2026)

Evidence; dismissal of action; costs

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

823.11823.11 Evidence; dismissal of action; costs. In actions begun under s. 823.10 the existence of any nuisance defined by s. 823.09 shall constitute prima facie evidence that the owner of the premises affected has permitted the same to be used as a nuisance; and evidence of the general reputation of the place shall be admissible to prove the existence of such nuisance. If the complaint is filed by a citizen, it shall not be dismissed, except upon a sworn statement made by the complainant and the complainant’s attorney, setting forth the reasons why the action should be dismissed, and the dismissal shall be approved by the district attorney of the county in writing or in open court. If the court is of the opinion that the action ought not to be dismissed it may direct the district attorney of the county to prosecute said action to judgment. If the action is brought by a citizen, and the court finds that there was no reasonable ground or cause for said action the costs shall be taxed to such citizen.

823.11 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 762, 782 (1975); Stats. 1975 s. 823.11; 1993 a. 486.

823.11 AnnotationRead in conjunction with this section, ss. 823.09 and 823.10 do not violate due process because they provide the opportunity to challenge prima facie evidence that a defendant knowingly permitted prostitution to occur on the defendant’s property and also allow the collateral challenge of the underlying prostitution convictions. The statutes also do not violate constitutional rights to freedom of association, the protection against government establishment of religion, or equal protection. State v. Schultz, 218 Wis. 2d 798, 582 N.W.2d 113 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-3414.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1998–1999 · leading case: State v. Schultz, 582 N.W.2d 113 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Schultz, 582 N.W.2d 113 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 12× “, read in conjunction with § 823.11, Stats., do not violate Schultz's due process rights because they: (1) require proof that the property owner have knowledge that acts of prostitution are occurring on that property, and (2) provide the owner with a meaningful opportunity to…”

State v. Schultz, 591 N.W.2d 904 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “In Schultz I, we upheld the constitutionality of the statutes against Schultz's due process challenge based in part on the conclusion that under § 823.11, STATS., prostitution convictions constitute only prima facie evidence of the owner's knowledge.”

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.