Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 785 — CONTEMPT OF COURT
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (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
785.01785.01 Definitions. In this chapter:
785.01(1)(1) “Contempt of court” means intentional:
785.01(1)(a)(a) Misconduct in the presence of the court which interferes with a court proceeding or with the administration of justice, or which impairs the respect due the court;
785.01(1)(b)(b) Disobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court;
785.01(1)(bm)(bm) Violation of any provision of s. 767.117 (1);
785.01(1)(br)(br) Violation of an order under s. 813.1285 (4) (b) 2.;
785.01(1)(c)(c) Refusal as a witness to appear, be sworn or answer a question; or
785.01(1)(d)(d) Refusal to produce a record, document or other object.
785.01(2)(2) “Punitive sanction” means a sanction imposed to punish a past contempt of court for the purpose of upholding the authority of the court.
785.01(3)(3) “Remedial sanction” means a sanction imposed for the purpose of terminating a continuing contempt of court.
785.01 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 257; 1983 a. 189; 1993 a. 78; 2005 a. 443 s. 265; 2013 a. 321.
785.01 AnnotationWhen a father ordered to pay support and annually provide financial records to his ex-spouse only provided the records the day before a contempt hearing, it was no longer possible to produce the information in a timely manner as was required. The circumstances made full compliance with the court’s order impossible, and partial compliance with the court’s order was ineffectual. Unless the court is able to fashion an alternative purge condition to compensate the mother and children for their loss, they and the court will be defeated. Frisch v. Henrichs, 2007 WI 102, 304 Wis. 2d 1, 736 N.W.2d 85, 05-0534.
785.01 AnnotationThere need not be a specific injunction against a particular action to apply contempt sanctions to an order. An order that requires specific conduct, either to do, or to refrain from, specific actions, can be enforced by contempt. Neither sub. (1) nor case law requires that an order contain the specific term “enjoin” or “injunction” to allow the court to use contempt powers to enforce its orders, nor is the possibility of a separate civil action a bar to use of contempt to enforce a court order. Carney v. CNH Health & Welfare Plan, 2007 WI App 205, 305 Wis. 2d 443, 740 N.W.2d 625, 06-1529.
785.01 AnnotationTo allow a successor corporation to defend contempt based upon its agent’s ignorance of court orders in the possession of the successor corporation and binding on both the predecessor and successor corporations would make a mockery of court orders. Understandable sympathy for an individual agent, when the agent acts in good faith, but without knowledge of what is in the files the agent is charged to administer, would permit easy corporate avoidance of responsibility by simply hiring a new employee with no actual knowledge of the order. Carney v. CNH Health & Welfare Plan, 2007 WI App 205, 305 Wis. 2d 443, 740 N.W.2d 625, 06-1529.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009). · cites it 199× “" Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (3) (2007-08) [1] (emphasis added).”
Frisch v. Henrichs, 2007 WI 102 (Wis. 2007). · cites it 58× “Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (1)(a), (b), and (d).”
Evans v. Luebke, 2003 WI App 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “10 Moreover, the Judicial Council note discussing Wis. Stat. § 785.01 states: It is not the intent of the council to make the failure to comply with a scheduling, discovery or pretrial order automatically contempt of court.”
State v. Ronald Knipfer, 2015 WI 3 (Wis. 2015). · cites it 4× “02 (regarding the power of the court to punish for contempt of court); see also Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (defining "contempt of court").”
State v. Hess, 2010 WI 82 (Wis. 2010). · cites it 4× “" Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (1)(a)-(b). There is nothing in the record to suggest that Hess satisfied either definition of contempt of court.”
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2008 WI App 18 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 13× “The trial court's attempts to enforce its support order, including numerous contempt proceedings and reductions in the level of support, met with minimal success, and the court found Larsen in contempt under Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (1)(b), ordering Larsen to serve ninety days in…”
Timothy Zignego v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2021 WI 32 (Wis. 2021). · cites it 3× “More to the point, it bears no resemblance to our election administration laws that give the Commission more limited duties, as we have explained at length.”
Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott Walker, 2013 WI 91 (Wis. 2013). · cites it 4× “" Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (b). The Commissioners disobeyed the order of the court by continuing to enforce a statute despite the declaratory judgment rendering that statute null and void.”
Tensfeldt v. Haberman, 2009 WI 77 (Wis. 2009). · cites it 4× “See Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (1)(b). However, to do so, he needed help in drafting his will, and LaBudde provided this assistance.”
Carney v. CNH Health & Welfare Plan, 2007 WI App 205 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 11× “Neither the statute ( Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (1) " 'Contempt of court' means intentional.”
Finding of Contempt in State v. Kruse, 533 N.W.2d 819 (Wis. 1995). · cites it 4× “The state further contends that, in light of the disjunctive standard set forth in sec. 785.01, Stats., 4 the summary procedure is appropriate even when there is no interference with the administration of justice per se.”
Diane K. J. v. James L. J., 539 N.W.2d 703 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “See § 785.01(2), Stats.; King, 82 Wis. 2d at 129 , 262 N.”
Show all 77 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 785.01(1) — 11 cases
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009). “" Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (3) (2007-08) [1] (emphasis added).”
City of Milwaukee v. Washington, 2006 WI App 99 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
Shepard v. Circuit Court for Outagamie Cnty., 525 N.W.2d 764 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Angelina M. Hansen (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
Matter of Findings of Contempt in State v. Shepard, 525 N.W.2d 764 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 785.01(1)(a) — 7 cases
Allied Processors, Inc. v. W. Nat'l Mut. Ins., 2001 WI App 129 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
Currie v. Schwalbach, 390 N.W.2d 575 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).
Software One, Inc. v. Carol Eastman (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
David Patton v. Circuit Court for Kenosha Cnty. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Julie C. Valadez v. Michael J. Aprahamian (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 785.01(1)(b) — 23 cases
Timothy Zignego v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2020 WI App 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Carpenter, 508 N.W.2d 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
In Re Paternity of JLV, 426 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).
Kael Dylan Hanson v. Gloria Jean Beach (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
Krause v. Krause, 918 N.W.2d 644 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wis. Stat. § 785.01(2) — 8 cases
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009). “" Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (3) (2007-08) [1] (emphasis added).”
Timothy Zignego v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2021 WI 32 (Wis. 2021). “More to the point, it bears no resemblance to our election administration laws that give the Commission more limited duties, as we have explained at length.”
Diane K. J. v. James L. J., 539 N.W.2d 703 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “See § 785.01(2), Stats.; King, 82 Wis. 2d at 129 , 262 N.”
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2008 WI App 18 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “The trial court's attempts to enforce its support order, including numerous contempt proceedings and reductions in the level of support, met with minimal success, and the court found Larsen in contempt under Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (1)(b), ordering Larsen to serve ninety days in…”
Oliveto v. Circuit Court for Crawford Cnty., 519 N.W.2d 769 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 785.01(3) — 19 cases
Christensen v. Sullivan, 2009 WI 87 (Wis. 2009). “" Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (3) (2007-08) [1] (emphasis added).”
Frisch v. Henrichs, 2007 WI 102 (Wis. 2007). “Wis. Stat. § 785.01 (1)(a), (b), and (d).”
In Re Marriage of Benn v. Benn, 602 N.W.2d 65 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
State Ex Rel. Larsen v. Larsen, 465 N.W.2d 225 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).
Diane K. J. v. James L. J., 539 N.W.2d 703 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “See § 785.01(2), Stats.; King, 82 Wis. 2d at 129 , 262 N.”
— Wis. Stat. § 785.01(b) — 2 cases
Ash Park, LLC v. Alexander & Bishop, Ltd., 2010 WI 44 (Wis. 2010).
Cairo v. Skow, 510 F. Supp. 201 (E.D. Wis. 1981).
— Wis. Stat. § 785.01(l)(a) — 2 cases
Finding of Contempt in State v. Kruse, 533 N.W.2d 819 (Wis. 1995). “The state further contends that, in light of the disjunctive standard set forth in sec. 785.01, Stats., 4 the summary procedure is appropriate even when there is no interference with the administration of justice per se.”
Findings of Contempt in Wisconsin v. Dewerth, 390 N.W.2d 575 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).
— Wis. Stat. § 785.01(l)(b) — 6 cases
State ex rel. Larsen v. Larsen, 478 N.W.2d 18 (Wis. 1992).
State v. Carpenter, 508 N.W.2d 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
Finding of Contempt in State v. Lemmons, 437 N.W.2d 224 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989).
J.W. v. M.W.G., 426 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).
State ex rel. Bohren v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee Cnty., 532 N.W.2d 135 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
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.