Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 757.13 (2026)

Continuances; legislative privilege

✓ current as of July 2026

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

757.13757.13 Continuances; legislative privilege. When a witness, party or an attorney for any party to any action or proceeding in any court or any commission, is a member of the Wisconsin legislature, in session, that fact is sufficient cause for the adjournment or continuance of the action or proceeding, and the adjournment or continuance shall be granted without the imposition of terms.

757.13 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 187 s. 96; Stats. 1977 s. 757.13; 1979 c. 34.

757.13 AnnotationThis section would violate the doctrine of separation of powers if construed to mandate the grant of a continuance or adjournment. Courts should consider, in the sound exercise of their discretion, that a witness, party, or party’s attorney is a member of the legislature in session when that person seeks a continuance or adjournment for that reason and should accommodate the schedule of the legislature consistent with the demands of fairness and efficiency in the particular case. State v. Chvala, 2003 WI App 257, 268 Wis. 2d 451, 673 N.W.2d 401, 03-0746.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2003–2019 · leading case: State v. Chvala, 2003 WI App 257 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Chvala, 2003 WI App 257 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 40× “The issue on appeal is whether, as Chvala contends, Wis. Stat. § 757.13 (2001-02) 1 prohibits the trial court from scheduling the trial in this case before the last general business floor session ends on March 11, 2004.”

League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Tony Evers, 929 N.W.2d 209 (Wis. 2019). · cites it 4× “" Further, Wis. Stat. § 757.13 , which limits the courts' jurisdiction over members of the Legislature while they are "in session," would be rendered virtually meaningless if the Legislature was in one perpetual session.”

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.