Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 85.13 (2026)
Cost of traffic violation and registration program
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
85.1385.13 Cost of traffic violation and registration program. The department shall develop a system for charging local units of government or other authority as defined in s. 345.28 (1) (a) for the cost of the development and operation of the traffic violation and registration program under ss. 341.08 (4m), 341.10 (7) and (7m), 341.63 (1) (c), 345.28 (4) and 345.47 (1) (d) based on the number of transactions processed by the local unit of government or other authority. A notice under s. 345.28 (4) submitted by an authority with respect to unpaid towing and storage charges shall be considered a separate transaction for purposes of this section. No notices under s. 345.28 (4) submitted by an authority or under s. 345.47 (1) (d) submitted by the court may be processed by the department unless the local unit of government or other authority involved has paid the department the appropriate amount determined by the department under this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1928–2002 · leading case: State v. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97 (Wis. 2002).
State v. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97 (Wis. 2002). “See Wis. Stat. § 85.13 (2) (1949-50). Breath, blood, and urine tests are reliable and admissible in evidence.”
State v. Wideman, 556 N.W.2d 737 (Wis. 1996). “340, Laws of 1953; Wis. Stat. § 85.13 (3) (1953-1954). 14 §171, ch.”
City of Milwaukee v. Richards, 69 N.W.2d 445 (Wis. 1955). “” This section is substantially in the wording of sec. 85.13, Stats. 1951, which provides in part: “85.”
Devine v. Bischel, 254 N.W. 521 (Wis. 1934). “Manifestly, in view of the omnibus form of the questions, it is impossible to determine what particular set or sets of facts as to negligence on the part of the respective parties entered into the comparison which the jurors were required to make, and, consequently, the verdict…”
Eleason v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 35 N.W.2d 301 (Wis. 1948). “” This conclusion lacks support because under sec. 85.13, Stats., it is unlawful for anyone who is subject to epilepsy to operate an automobile.”
Turecek v. Marathon Cnty., 221 N.W. 384 (Wis. 1928). “An examination of a photograph found in the record indicates that it probably was not higher. At what point it reached the height of twenty inches was not testified to.”
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.