Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 757.81 (2026)
Definitions
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
757.81(3)(3) “Judge” means a judge of any court established by or pursuant to article VII, section 2 or 14, of the constitution, or a supreme court justice.
757.81(4)(c)(c) Habitual intemperance, due to consumption of intoxicating beverages or use of dangerous drugs, which interferes with the proper performance of judicial duties.
757.81(6)(6) “Permanent disability” means a physical or mental incapacity which impairs the ability of a judge or circuit or supplemental court commissioner to substantially perform the duties of his or her judicial office and which is or is likely to be of a permanent or continuing nature.
757.81 AnnotationThe provisions for judicial disciplinary proceedings under ss. 757.81 to 757.99 are constitutional. In re Complaint Against Seraphim, 97 Wis. 2d 485, 294 N.W.2d 485 (1980).
757.81 AnnotationA violation of the code of judicial conduct is “willful” for purposes of sub. (4) when the judge’s conduct was not the result of duress or coercion and when the judge knew or should have known that the conduct was prohibited by the code. Although a judge may commit a “willful” violation constituting judicial misconduct when the judge has no actual knowledge that the judge’s conduct is prohibited by the code, the judge’s actual knowledge, or lack thereof, of the code is relevant to the issue of discipline. Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Ziegler, 2008 WI 47, 309 Wis. 2d 253, 750 N.W.2d 710, 07-2066.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: The Honorable William M. Gabler, Sr. v. Crime Victims Rights Bd., 2017 WI 67 (Wis. 2017).
The Honorable William M. Gabler, Sr. v. Crime Victims Rights Bd., 2017 WI 67 (Wis. 2017). “We agree with the Board that Wis. Stat. § 757.81 (4)(a) sets a high bar for proof of judicial misconduct, but we disagree that it leaves victims without a remedy.”
In Re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ziegler, 2008 WI 47 (Wis. 2008). “Ziegler presided in 11 cases in which the West Bend Savings Bank was a party when the Judge's spouse was a director of the Bank. The applicable Code rule, SCR 60.”
In the Matter of Jud. Discip. Proceed. Against Tesmer, 580 N.W.2d 307 (Wis. 1998). “Consequently, and as it did not result from duress or coercion, Judge Tesmer's conduct was "wilful," so as to constitute judicial misconduct under Wis. Stat. § 757.81 (4)(a). [3] *712 ¶ 3.”
Wisconsin Jud. Comm'n v. Gableman, 2010 WI 61 (Wis. 2010). “06(3)(c) and engaged in judicial misconduct pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 757.81 (4)(a). By means of the advertisement, which he personally reviewed after personally reviewing the underlying facts, Justice Gableman knowingly or with reckless disregard for the statements' truth or…”
WJC v. Hon. Scott C. Woldt, 2021 WI 73 (Wis. 2021). “¶28 The Panel's final legal conclusion was that Judge Woldt's conduct in the six incidents, as described in the preceding paragraphs, constituted willful violations of the specified SCRs, which therefore constituted judicial misconduct under Wis. Stat. § 757.81 (4)(a). II.…”
Evans v. Luebke, 2003 WI App 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “See Wis. Stat. §§ 757.81 (4)(a), (b) and 757.”
Wis. Jud. Comm'n v. Piontek (In Re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Piontek), 927 N.W.2d 552 (Wis. 2019). “¶24 The Judicial Conduct Panel concluded that each of these violations was willful and thus constituted judicial misconduct under Wis. Stat. § 757.81 (4)(a). 8 *557 ¶25 We adopt the panel's undisputed findings and conclusions of law.”
In Re the Complaint Against Judge Grady, 348 N.W.2d 559 (Wis. 1984). “NOTES [1] In the context of judicial discipline, sec. 757.81(4), Stats., defines "misconduct" to include: "(a) Wilful violation of a rule of the code of judicial ethics.”
Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Laatsch, 2007 WI 20 (Wis. 2007). “The judicial conduct panel concluded that each of these violations was willful and thus constituted judicial misconduct under Wis. Stat. § 757.81 (4)(a). 6 *150 See In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tesmer, 219 Wis.”
Wisconsin Jud. Comm'n v. Gableman, 2010 WI 62 (Wis. 2010). “06(3)(c) of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct and thereby engaged injudicial misconduct as defined by Wis. Stat. § 757.81 (4)(a) (2007-08) 2 The Commission alleged that the violation of SCR 60.”
In the Matter of Jud. Discip. Proceedings Against Crawford, 2001 WI 96 (Wis. 2001). “Failure to comply with an order of the chief judge may be grounds for discipline under sections 757.81 to 757.99 of the statutes.”
In Matter of Complaint Against Seraphim, 294 N.W.2d 485 (Wis. 1980). “1 Sec. 757.81(4), Stats., defines “misconduct” for purposes of judicial disciplinary proceedings as follows: “ (4) ‘Misconduct’ includes any of the following: “(a) Wilful violation of a rule of the code of judicial ethics.”
— Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4) — 11 cases
In Re the Complaint Against Judge Grady, 348 N.W.2d 559 (Wis. 1984). “NOTES [1] In the context of judicial discipline, sec. 757.81(4), Stats., defines "misconduct" to include: "(a) Wilful violation of a rule of the code of judicial ethics.”
In Matter of Complaint Against Seraphim, 294 N.W.2d 485 (Wis. 1980). “1 Sec. 757.81(4), Stats., defines “misconduct” for purposes of judicial disciplinary proceedings as follows: “ (4) ‘Misconduct’ includes any of the following: “(a) Wilful violation of a rule of the code of judicial ethics.”
In Re Jud. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dreyfus, 513 N.W.2d 604 (Wis. 1994).
Matter of Jud. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Pressentin, 406 N.W.2d 779 (Wis. 1987).
WJC v. Hon. Scott C. Woldt, 2021 WI 73 (Wis. 2021). “¶28 The Panel's final legal conclusion was that Judge Woldt's conduct in the six incidents, as described in the preceding paragraphs, constituted willful violations of the specified SCRs, which therefore constituted judicial misconduct under Wis. Stat. § 757.81 (4)(a). II.…”
— Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a) — 18 cases
In the Matter of Jud. Discip. Proceed. Against Tesmer, 580 N.W.2d 307 (Wis. 1998). “Consequently, and as it did not result from duress or coercion, Judge Tesmer's conduct was "wilful," so as to constitute judicial misconduct under Wis. Stat. § 757.81 (4)(a). [3] *712 ¶ 3.”
In Re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ziegler, 2008 WI 47 (Wis. 2008). “Ziegler presided in 11 cases in which the West Bend Savings Bank was a party when the Judge's spouse was a director of the Bank. The applicable Code rule, SCR 60.”
Wis. Jud. Comm'n v. Piontek (In Re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Piontek), 927 N.W.2d 552 (Wis. 2019). “¶24 The Judicial Conduct Panel concluded that each of these violations was willful and thus constituted judicial misconduct under Wis. Stat. § 757.81 (4)(a). 8 *557 ¶25 We adopt the panel's undisputed findings and conclusions of law.”
Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Laatsch, 2007 WI 20 (Wis. 2007). “The judicial conduct panel concluded that each of these violations was willful and thus constituted judicial misconduct under Wis. Stat. § 757.81 (4)(a). 6 *150 See In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tesmer, 219 Wis.”
In the Matter of Jud. Discip. Proceedings Against Crawford, 2001 WI 96 (Wis. 2001). “Failure to comply with an order of the chief judge may be grounds for discipline under sections 757.81 to 757.99 of the statutes.”
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.