Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 135.05 (2026)
Application to arbitration agreements
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
135.05135.05 Application to arbitration agreements. This chapter shall not apply to provisions for the binding arbitration of disputes contained in a dealership agreement concerning the items covered in s. 135.03, if the criteria for determining whether good cause existed for a termination, cancellation, nonrenewal or substantial change of competitive circumstances, and the relief provided is no less than that provided for in this chapter.
135.05 AnnotationFederal law required enforcement of an arbitration clause even though that clause did not provide the relief guaranteed by this chapter, contrary to this section and s. 135.025. Madison Beauty Supply v. Helene Curtis, 167 Wis. 2d 237, 481 N.W.2d 644 (Ct. App. 1992).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Winebow, Inc. v. Capitol-Husting Co., Inc., 914 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. 2018).
Winebow, Inc. v. Capitol-Husting Co., Inc., 914 N.W.2d 631 (Wis. 2018). “Section 135.05 discusses the applicability of arbitration agreements in ch.”
Good (E) Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 614 F. Supp. 428 (W.D. Wis. 1985). “However, plaintiff contends that the other causes of action are outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff also contends that even if the fair dealership claim is otherwise within the scope of the arbitration clause, it is not arbitrable because the arbitration…”
Moody v. Amoco Oil Co. (In Re Moody), 31 B.R. 216 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1983). “Based upon the reasoning in Van and Union Oil, it must be concluded that Amoco’s nationwide policy changes imposed upon all dealers and jobbers are not changes in competitive circumstances within the meaning of Wis.Stat. § 135.05. Thus, debtor has failed to show that it has a…”
Madison Beauty Supply, Ltd. v. Helene Curtis, Inc., 481 N.W.2d 644 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “Section 135.05, Stats., provides: This chapter shall not apply to provisions for the binding arbitration of disputes contained in a dealership agreement concerning the items covered in s.”
Wisconsin Lift Truck Corp v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Am. Inc (E.D. Wis. 2020). “Wis. Stat. § 135.05 . Thus, there is no doubt that WFDL claims may be properly resolved by arbitration.”
Am. Dairy Queen Corp. v. Wineinger, David (W.D. Wis. 2022). “1986) (§ 135.05 bars grantor action that has “substantially adverse although not lethal effects”); Conrad’s Sentry, Inc.”
Brava Salon Specialists, LLC v. REF North Am., Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2024). “1986) (§ 135.05 bars grantor action that has “substantially adverse although not lethal effects”); Conrad’s Sentry, Inc.”
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.