Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 781.01 (2026)
Extraordinary remedy as final judgment or provisional remedy
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
781.01781.01 Extraordinary remedy as final judgment or provisional remedy. The remedy available by a writ of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or habeas corpus may be granted by the final judgment or allowed as a provisional remedy in an action or proceeding. The use of a writ is not necessary. This section does not alter the nature of any extraordinary remedy or the scope of the proceedings, including without limitation the relief available, discovery, the availability of jury trial and the burden of proof.
781.01 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1981: This section renders the use of the writ procedure unnecessary. It makes the remedy available by one of the extraordinary writs also available by a final judgment or a provisional remedy in an ordinary action in circuit court. This section follows the approach taken in s. 813.01, stats., by which the injunction remedy was made available in an ordinary action, and in s. 809.01 (1), stats., by which the writ of error procedure was made the same as the procedure for appeals. [Bill 613-A]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: Thomas D. Nowell v. City of Wausau, 2013 WI 88 (Wis. 2013).
Thomas D. Nowell v. City of Wausau, 2013 WI 88 (Wis. 2013). “Wis. Stat. § 781.01 ; see also Judicial Council Notes to § 801.”
State Ex Rel. Warren v. Schwarz, 579 N.W.2d 698 (Wis. 1998). “5 The following month, Warren sought review of the Department's revocation decision by petition for writ of certiorari in the Richland County Circuit Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 781.01 (1993-94). Raising substantially the same arguments which he presents to this court, Warren…”
Bin-Rilla v. Israel, 335 N.W.2d 384 (Wis. 1983). “Sec. 781.01, Stats. *522 1981-82. This change is another indication of the state’s preference for a flexible approach to pleading requirements.”
State Ex Rel. Iushewitz v. Milwaukee Cnty. Pers. Review Bd., 500 N.W.2d 634 (Wis. 1993). “Furthermore, it contravenes sec. 781.01, Stats. 1991-92, which provides that "the remedy available by a writ of mandamus .”
Philip I. Warren v. Richland Cnty. Circuit Court & Jon Litscher, Sec'y, Wisconsin Dep't of Corr., 223 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 2000). “After a hearing, Warren’s probation was revoked and he was ordered to begin serving his five year sentence.”
State Ex Rel. Parker v. Fiedler, 509 N.W.2d 440 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “Section 781.01, Stats. It is a civil action, Irby v.”
Tobler v. Door Cnty., 461 N.W.2d 775 (Wis. 1990). “Expounding upon the obvious meaning of the legislature's action, the 1981 Judicial Council Notes pertaining to sec. 781.01, Stats., read as follows: Note: This section renders the use of the writ procedure unnecessary.”
State Ex Rel. Schwochert v. Marquette Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 389 N.W.2d 841 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “The quoted paragraph refers only to the portion of the act creating sec. 781.01, Stats., which states that: The remedy available by a writ of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or habeas corpus may be granted by the final judgment or allowed as a provisional remedy…”
Douglas Kurtzweil v. Sawyer Cnty. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2023 WI App 43 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “The court further “expound[ed] upon the obvious meaning of the legislature’s action” by quoting the 1981 Judicial Council Committee notes, which in turn stated that these legislative changes “make[] the remedy available by one of the extraordinary writs also available by a final…”
Enbridge Energy Co. v. Dane Cnty., 917 N.W.2d 232 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 781.01." At oral argument on appeal, the County and the landowners both took the position that the circuit court had jurisdiction under common law certiorari, but not pursuant to § 59.”
Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 781.01 is such a statute and operates to preserve common law rules regarding writs, including the six-month certiorari rule.”
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.