Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 801.63 (2026)
Stay of proceeding to permit trial in a foreign forum
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
801.63(1)(1) Stay on initiative of parties. If a court of this state, on motion of any party, finds that trial of an action pending before it should as a matter of substantial justice be tried in a forum outside this state, the court may in conformity with sub. (3) enter an order to stay further proceedings on the action in this state. A moving party under this subsection must stipulate consent to suit in the alternative forum and waive right to rely on statutes of limitation which may have run in the alternative forum after commencement of the action in this state. A stay order may be granted although the action could not have been commenced in the alternative forum without consent of the moving party.
801.63(2)(2) Time for filing and hearing motion. The motion to stay the proceedings shall be filed prior to or with the answer unless the motion is to stay proceedings on a cause raised by counterclaim, in which instance the motion shall be filed prior to or with the reply. The issues raised by this motion shall be tried to the court in advance of any issue going to the merits of the action and shall be joined with objections, if any, raised by answer or motion pursuant to s. 802.06 (2). The court shall find separately on each issue so tried and these findings shall be set forth in a single order.
801.63(3)(3) Scope of trial court discretion on motion to stay proceedings. The decision on any timely motion to stay proceedings pursuant to sub. (1) is within the discretion of the court in which the action is pending. In the exercise of that discretion the court may appropriately consider such factors as:
801.63(3)(a)(a) Amenability to personal jurisdiction in this state and in any alternative forum of the parties to the action;
801.63(3)(b)(b) Convenience to the parties and witnesses of trial in this state and in any alternative forum;
801.63(3)(c)(c) Differences in conflict of law rules applicable in this state and in any alternative forum; or
801.63(3)(d)(d) Any other factors having substantial bearing upon the selection of a convenient, reasonable and fair place of trial.
801.63(4)(4) Subsequent modification of order to stay proceedings. Jurisdiction of the court continues over the parties to a proceeding in which a stay has been ordered under this section until a period of 5 years has elapsed since the last order affecting the stay was entered in the court. At any time during which jurisdiction of the court continues over the parties to the proceedings, the court may, on motion and notice to the parties, subsequently modify the stay order and take any further action in the proceeding as the interests of justice require. When jurisdiction of the court over the parties and the proceeding terminates by reason of the lapse of 5 years following the last court order in the action, the clerk of the court in which the stay was granted shall without notice enter an order dismissing the action.
801.63 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 612 (1975), 758, 777; 1975 c. 218; Stats. 1975 s. 801.63; Sup. Ct. Order, 141 Wis. 2d xiii (1987); Sup. Ct. Order, 151 Wis. 2d xvii (1989).
801.63 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (5) [created] allows motions for stays under this section to be heard by telephone conference. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1988]
801.63 AnnotationA motion to stay a Wisconsin action or transfer the case to an Iowa court where an action arising out of the same accident was pending was properly denied when the parties were different and because of Iowa law the plaintiff would lose substantial rights. Littmann v. Littmann, 57 Wis. 2d 238, 203 N.W.2d 901 (1973).
801.63 AnnotationA court ordinarily should adjudicate the litigation before it and the plaintiff’s choice of a forum should rarely be disturbed unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant. A trial of the cause should be permitted in another state only upon a convincing showing that the trial in Wisconsin is likely to result in a substantial injustice. U.I.P. Corp. v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., 65 Wis. 2d 377, 222 N.W.2d 638 (1974).
801.63 AnnotationA party seeking a stay must show not only that trial in the forum state will be inconvenient and unjust but also that trial in another forum is both more convenient and just. U.I.P. Corp. v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., 82 Wis. 2d 616, 264 N.W.2d 525 (1978).
801.63 AnnotationThis section does not control inconvenient forum motions in custody proceedings. Mayer v. Mayer, 91 Wis. 2d 342, 283 N.W.2d 591 (Ct. App. 1979).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: Mayer v. Mayer.
Mayer v. Mayer (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “He cites sec. 801.63, Stats. Nancy argues that sec.”
Johnson v. G.D. Searle & Co. (Md. 1989). “1962) (now Wis. Stat. Ann. § 801.63 (West 1977)). The comment points out that "[p]ossible conditions for granting the stay suggested in the Wisconsin provision are consent of the parties to suit in the alternative forum and waiver of reliance upon statutes of limitations.”
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marks (Wis. 2003). “[3] Consistent with that determination we decline to stay this matter pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 801.63 , nor will we require the OLR to refer the matter to the Michigan disciplinary authorities.”
Precision Erecting, Inc. v. M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank, G.A.P., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “AFW responds that the stay was properly denied because Nambe did not comply with the procedural requirements of § 801.”
Converting/Biophile Labs., Inc. v. Ludlow Composites Corp. (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “This "favoring" of the plaintiffs choice of forum may be superseded in several ways, however, such as through an inconvenient forum motion under Wis. Stat. § 801.63 , a discretionary change of venue under Wis.”
Regal Ware, Inc. v. TSCO CORP. (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “Regal Ware claims that the circuit court erred in this finding, and further claims that the court should have applied § 801.63, Stats., to determine whether the Wisconsin action should proceed or be stayed because of the pendency of a proceeding in another state.”
Davis v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Davis asserts the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it granted a stay of the proceedings pursuant to § 801.63, Stats. He also argues that the doctrines of judicial estoppel, fundamental fairness and claim preclusion do not support summary judgment.”
Kedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co. (R.I. 2008). “Code § 56-1 -la (Lexis Nexis 2007); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 801.63 (West 1994); Fla.”
Kroner v. Oneida Seven Generations Corp. (Wis. 2012). “It should be noted that cases filed in circuit court can be transferred to "a forum outside this state," Wis. Stat. § 801.63 , or removed to a United States District Court, 28 U.”
State Ex Rel. Academy Press, Ltd. v. Beckett (Or. 1978). “…Any other factors having substantial bearing upon the selection of a convenient, reasonable and fair place of trial. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 801.63 (1977).”
Lustig v. Lustig (S.D. 1997). “enter an order to stay further proceedings on the action in this state_” WisStatAnn § 801.63(1) (West 1994). See E.”
Schroff v. Schroff (Wis. 1978). “In the alternative, she moved the court pursuant to sec. 801.63, Stats. (1975) to stay the action to permit the Florida Dissolution of Marriage action to proceed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.63(1) — 4 cases
Johnson v. G.D. Searle & Co. (Md. 1989). “1962) (now Wis. Stat. Ann. § 801.63 (West 1977)). The comment points out that "[p]ossible conditions for granting the stay suggested in the Wisconsin provision are consent of the parties to suit in the alternative forum and waiver of reliance upon statutes of limitations.”
Lustig v. Lustig (S.D. 1997). “enter an order to stay further proceedings on the action in this state_” WisStatAnn § 801.63(1) (West 1994). See E.”
Davis v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Davis asserts the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it granted a stay of the proceedings pursuant to § 801.63, Stats. He also argues that the doctrines of judicial estoppel, fundamental fairness and claim preclusion do not support summary judgment.”
Kroner v. Oneida Seven Generations Corp. (Wis. 2012). “It should be noted that cases filed in circuit court can be transferred to "a forum outside this state," Wis. Stat. § 801.63 , or removed to a United States District Court, 28 U.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.63(2) — 1 case
North Cent. Dairymen's Coop. v. Temkin (Wis. 1978).
— Wis. Stat. § 801.63(3) — 2 cases
Precision Erecting, Inc. v. M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank, G.A.P., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “AFW responds that the stay was properly denied because Nambe did not comply with the procedural requirements of § 801.”
Regal Ware, Inc. v. TSCO CORP. (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “Regal Ware claims that the circuit court erred in this finding, and further claims that the court should have applied § 801.63, Stats., to determine whether the Wisconsin action should proceed or be stayed because of the pendency of a proceeding in another state.”
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.