Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 788.07 (2026)

Depositions

✓ current as of July 2026

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

788.07788.07 Depositions. Upon petition, approved by the arbitrators or by a majority of them, any court of record in and for the county in which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting may direct the taking of depositions to be used as evidence before the arbitrators, in the same manner and for the same reasons as provided by law for the taking of depositions in suits or proceedings pending in the courts of record in this state.

788.07 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 32 s. 64; Stats. 1979 s. 788.07.

788.07 AnnotationArbitrators have no inherent authority to dictate the scope of discovery. Absent an express agreement, the parties are limited to the procedure for depositions, as described in this section. Borst v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2006 WI 70, 291 Wis. 2d 361, 717 N.W.2d 42, 04-2004.

788.07 AnnotationFor a party in arbitration to enjoy discovery outside of that allowed by this section, an insurance policy must provide for it expressly, explicitly, specifically, and in a clearly drafted clause. For a policy to adequately describe the discovery mechanisms to be used at arbitration, it must indicate in the policy that the mechanisms are in fact discovery mechanisms and that they are meant to be available at arbitration. A provision stating that “local rules of law as to procedure and evidence will apply” was not an explicit, specific, and clearly drafted reference to ch. 804 or to any other discovery rules. Marlowe v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co., 2013 WI 29, 346 Wis. 2d 450, 828 N.W.2d 812, 11-2067.

788.07 AnnotationBorst Clarifies Arbitration Procedures. Frankel. Wis. Law. Dec. 2006.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2006–2013 · leading case: Mary E. Marlowe v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 2013 WI 29 (Wis. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mary E. Marlowe v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 2013 WI 29 (Wis. 2013). · cites it 236× “GABLEMAN, J. We review a published decision of the court of appeals1 reversing the Brown County Circuit Court's declaratory judgment2 limiting discovery in an arbitration proceeding to that allowed by Wis.”

Borst v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2006 WI 70 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 15× “10 (l)(b) (2003-04), 1 can "evident partiality," due to a relationship between an arbitrator and a party be avoided by full disclosure at the outset and a declaration of impartiality? (3) Other than the deposition procedure outlined in Wis. Stat. § 788.07 , is the nature and…”

Marlowe v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins., 2012 WI App 51 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 10× “The Marlowes informed IDS they would not comply with its requests because, under Wis. Stat. § 788.07 , discovery in arbitration is limited to taking depositions.”

Mary E. Marlowe v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (Wis. 2013). · cites it 111× “GABLEMAN, J. We review a published decision of the court of appeals1 reversing the Brown County Circuit Court's declaratory judgment2 limiting discovery in an arbitration proceeding to that allowed by Wis.”

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.