Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 889 — DOCUMENTARY AND RECORD EVIDENCE
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 889.18 (2026)

Official records

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
889.18889.18 Official records.
889.18(1)(1) Chiropractors. The record by the county clerk of license or certificate under s. 446.02 shall not be evidence on behalf of the licensee or certificate holder without production of the license or certificate or competent evidence from the board or body that issued the same.
889.18(2)(2) Copies as evidence. A certified copy of any written or printed matter preserved pursuant to law in any public office or with any public officer in this state, or of the United States, is admissible in evidence whenever and wherever the original is admissible, and with like effect.
889.18(3)(3) Copies, duty to make. Any such officer of this state who, when tendered the legal fee therefor and requested to furnish such certified copy, shall unreasonably refuse to comply with such request, shall forfeit not less than $20 nor more than $100, one-half to the person prosecuting therefor.
889.18 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R5 (1973).
889.18 AnnotationThis section does not make admissible police accident reports that contain hearsay or conclusions. Wilder v. Classified Risk Ins. Co. 47 Wis. 2d 286, 177 N.W.2d 109 (1970).
889.18 AnnotationWhile sub. (2) does not refer to admission into evidence of copies of the official records from other states, other authority admits those documents. Organ v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 36, 221 N.W.2d 823 (1974).
889.18 AnnotationA certified copy of an order by the transportation department revoking the defendant’s driver’s license was admissible under sub. (2). The identity of the defendant as the one whose license had been revoked was prima facie established where the name was not common. State v. Mullis, 81 Wis. 2d 454, 260 N.W.2d 696 (1978).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2024 · leading case: Wilder v. Classified Risk Ins., 177 N.W.2d 109 (Wis. 1970).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wilder v. Classified Risk Ins., 177 N.W.2d 109 (Wis. 1970). · cites it 2× “A police traffic report, even as to conclusions and hearsay statements, would be admitted in evidence as an official record un *289 der sec. 889.18, Stats., 1 formerly sec. 327.”
Rusecki v. State, 201 N.W.2d 832 (Wis. 1972). · cites it 3× “That exception is stated in sec. 889.18, Stats., which provides: "(1) AS EVIDENCE.”
State v. Garner, 194 N.W.2d 649 (Wis. 1972). “The welfare department records are public documents and therefore qualified under the Official Records Act (sec. 889.18, Stats.). 6 See McCormick, Evidence (hornbook series), p.”
Ernst v. Greenwald, 151 N.W.2d 706 (Wis. 1967). “Sec. 889.18, Stats., provides: “(1) As Evidence.”
State Ex Rel. Prellwitz v. Schmidt, 242 N.W.2d 227 (Wis. 1976). “The welfare department records are public documents and therefore qualified under the Official Records Act (sec. 889.18, Stats.). See: McCormick, Evidence (hornbook series), p.”
State v. Mullis, 260 N.W.2d 696 (Wis. 1978). “This certified copy of the order was admissible under sec. 889.18(2), Stats., as an of *461 ficial record of a public officer of this state, which may be given the same evidentiary use as the original document.”
State v. Carmody, 170 N.W.2d 818 (Wis. 1969). “This court has held only public records themselves, and not summaries, are admissible under sec. 889.18, Stats.: “We conclude that a mere letter from an employee of the department that keeps public records does not constitute admissible evidence of the contents of such records.”
Amanda Craven v. JEK Prop. Mgmt. LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 889.18(2), (3). ¶29 Having made that clarification, we turn to one of Craven’s arguments.”
Wis. Stat. § 889.18(2): 2 cases
State v. Mullis, 260 N.W.2d 696 (Wis. 1978). “This certified copy of the order was admissible under sec. 889.18(2), Stats., as an of *461 ficial record of a public officer of this state, which may be given the same evidentiary use as the original document.”
Amanda Craven v. JEK Prop. Mgmt. LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 889.18(2), (3). ¶29 Having made that clarification, we turn to one of Craven’s arguments.”
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.