Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 757.89 (2026)
Hearing
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
757.89757.89 Hearing. A record shall be kept of any hearing on a formal complaint or a petition. The allegations of the complaint or petition must be proven to a reasonable certainty by evidence that is clear, satisfactory and convincing. The hearing shall be held in the county where the judge or circuit or supplemental court commissioner resides unless the presiding judge changes venue for cause shown or unless the parties otherwise agree. If the hearing is by a panel, the panel shall make findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations regarding appropriate discipline for misconduct or appropriate action for permanent disability and file the findings, conclusions and recommendations with the supreme court. If a jury hearing is requested under s. 757.87 (1), the presiding judge shall instruct the jury regarding the law applicable to judicial misconduct or permanent disability, as appropriate. The presiding judge shall file the jury verdict and his or her recommendations regarding appropriate discipline for misconduct or appropriate action for permanent disability with the supreme court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1980–2012 · leading case: Wisconsin Jud. Comm'n v. Gableman, 2010 WI 62 (Wis. 2010).
Wisconsin Jud. Comm'n v. Gableman, 2010 WI 62 (Wis. 2010). “In order to meet its burden of proof under Wis. Stat. § 757.89 , the Commission must persuade at least four justices, by clear, satisfactory and convincing evi *633 dence, that the advertisement by Justice Gableman's campaign committee violated SCR 60.”
In Re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ziegler, 2008 WI 47 (Wis. 2008). “Wedemeyer, Jr., District I Court of Appeals judges, and the Honorable Charles P.”
Wisconsin Jud. Comm'n v. Gableman, 2010 WI 61 (Wis. 2010). “" Wis. Stat. § 757.89 . The presiding judge shall then "file the jury verdict and his or her recommendations regarding appropriate discipline for misconduct.”
In Matter of Complaint Against Seraphim, 294 N.W.2d 485 (Wis. 1980). “On November 13, 1979, this court ordered the chief judge of the court of appeals to select a judicial conduct panel and refer the matter to the panel for proceedings in accordance with the provisions of sec. 757.89, Stats. A panel was convened and, following scheduling and…”
In Re Jud. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Aulik, 429 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1988). “While a judicial conduct panel is statutorily directed to make a recommendation for discipline once it has concluded that a judge has engaged in judicial misconduct, sec. 757.89, Stats., the supreme court, after reviewing the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law,…”
Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Guay, 303 N.W.2d 669 (Wis. 1981). “On June 4, 1980, this court ordered the chief judge of the court of appeals to select a judicial conduct panel and refer the matter to the panel for proceedings in accordance with the provisions of sec. 757.89, Stats. A panel was convened and, following a scheduling conference,…”
In Re Jud. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Breitenbach, 482 N.W.2d 52 (Wis. 1992). “, is not applicable to this proceeding and because the statutory procedure governing judicial disciplinary proceedings requires a judicial conduct panel to make findings of fact, conclusions of law and a recommendation regarding appropriate discipline for misconduct, sec.…”
Wisconsin Jud. Comm'n v. Prosser, 2012 WI 103 (Wis. 2012). “Because, at a minimum, the justices are witnesses and all justices are likely to be called as material witnesses in the proceeding, recusal is required.”
Seraphim v. Jud. Conduct Panel, Etc., 483 F. Supp. 295 (E.D. Wis. 1980). “§ 757.89. If the judicial commission requests a jury, then the advisory body shall consist of a jury of six to twelve persons presided over by a court of appeals judge; if no jury is requested, the matter is heard by a judicial conduct panel consisting of three court of appeals…”
Wisconsin Jud. Comm'n v. Zodrow, 2010 WI 107 (Wis. 2010). “After conducting an independent review of the matter, we agree with the panel that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline for Judge Zodrow's misconduct.”
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.