Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 802.03 (2026)
Pleading special matters
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
802.03(1)(1) Capacity. It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party. If a party desires to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, the party shall do so by specific negative averment which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge, or by motion under s. 802.06 (2).
802.03(2)(2) Fraud, mistake and condition of mind. In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.
802.03(3)(3) Conditions precedent. In pleading the performance or occurrence of conditions precedent in a contract, it shall not be necessary to state the facts showing such performance or occurrence, but it may be stated generally that the party duly performed all the conditions on his or her part or that the conditions have otherwise occurred or both. A denial of performance or occurrence shall be made specifically and with particularity. If the averment of performance or occurrence is controverted, the party pleading performance or occurrence shall be bound to establish on the trial the facts showing such performance or occurrence.
802.03(4)(4) Official document or act. In pleading an official document or official act it is sufficient to aver that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with the law.
802.03(5)(5) Judgment. In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it.
802.03(6)(6) Libel or slander. In an action for libel or slander, the particular words complained of shall be set forth in the complaint, but their publication and their application to the plaintiff may be stated generally.
802.03(7)(7) Sales of goods, etc. In an action involving the sale and delivery of goods or the performing of labor or services, or the furnishing of materials, the plaintiff may set forth and number in the complaint the items of the plaintiff’s claim and the reasonable value or agreed price of each. The defendant by the answer shall indicate specifically those items defendant disputes and whether in respect to delivery or performance, reasonable value or agreed price. If the plaintiff does not so plead the items of the claim, the plaintiff shall deliver to the defendant, within 10 days after service of a demand therefor in writing, a statement of the items of the plaintiff’s claim and the reasonable value or agreed price of each.
802.03(8)(8) Time and place. For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of a pleading, averments of time and place are material and shall be considered like all other averments of material matter.
802.03(9)(9) Foreclosure. In an action for foreclosure of real property, the complaint may not name a tenant of residential real property as a defendant unless the tenant has a lien or ownership interest in the real property.
802.03 AnnotationSub. (8) subjects claims lacking averments of time to motions for a more definite statement and not to motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Schweiger v. Loewi & Co., 65 Wis. 2d 56, 221 N.W.2d 882 (1974).
802.03 AnnotationThe “American rule” of absolute judicial immunity from liability for libel or slander provides that writings made by an attorney of record in a pending lawsuit apply in this state if the statements made are relevant to the matters being considered and are made in a procedural context recognized as affording absolute privilege. Converters Equipment Corp. v. Condes Corp., 80 Wis. 2d 257, 258 N.W.2d 712 (1977).
802.03 AnnotationWhen a libel action is based on conduct rather than words, sub. (6) is not applicable. Starobin v. Northridge Lakes Development Co., 94 Wis. 2d 1, 287 N.W.2d 747 (1980).
802.03 AnnotationSub. (2) does not prevent a trial court from amending the pleadings to conform with the evidence pursuant to s. 802.09 as long as the parties either consent or have the chance to submit additional proof. Meiers v. Wang, 192 Wis. 2d 115, 531 N.W.2d 54 (1995).
802.03 AnnotationSub. (2) requires specification of the time, place, and content of an alleged false representation. Allegations were too general that did not specify the particular individuals who made the representations and did not specify where, when, and to whom the representations were made. Friends of Kenwood v. Green, 2000 WI App 217, 239 Wis. 2d 78, 619 N.W.2d 271, 00-0680.
802.03 AnnotationThe heightened pleading standard set forth by sub. (2) for claims of fraud does not apply to claims made under s. 100.18. Hinrichs v. DOW Chemical Co., 2020 WI 2, 389 Wis. 2d 669, 937 N.W.2d 37, 17-2361.
802.03 AnnotationIn this case alleging fraudulent transfers under s. 242.04 (1) (a), the creditor alleged only that the debtor made substantial payments to the defendants each year and the total amount per defendant. The creditor did not allege the specifics of any of the transactions individually, by recipient, amount, date, or alleged purpose, nor did the creditor even allege the number of transfers, even though it was clear from the record that the creditor possessed such information. Alleging an unknown number of supposedly fraudulent transfers over a period of five years while asserting only collective totals was inadequate to satisfy the particularity requirement of sub. (2). Miller Compressing Co. v. Busby, 2025 WI App 29, 416 Wis. 2d 354, 21 N.W.3d 778, 23-1379.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 70
cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Chris Hinrichs v. DOW Chem. Co., 2020 WI 2 (Wis. 2020).
Chris Hinrichs v. DOW Chem. Co., 2020 WI 2 (Wis. 2020). “6, 2019) (per curiam) (affirming in part and reversing in part an order of the circuit court for Waukesha County, Kathryn W.”
Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisors LLC, 2014 WI 86 (Wis. 2014). “In short, we will dismiss a complaint if, under the guise of notice pleading, the complaint before us requires the court to indulge in too much speculation leaving too much to the imagination of the court.”
Lassa v. Rongstad, 2006 WI 105 (Wis. 2006). “Wis. Stat. § 802.03 (6). [16] The court in Cahill noted that "even silly or trivial libel claims can easily survive a motion to dismiss where the plaintiff pleads facts that put the defendant on notice of his claim, however vague or lacking in detail these allegations may be.”
Putnam v. Time Warner Cable of Se. Wisconsin, Ltd. P'ship, 2002 WI 108 (Wis. 2002). “Wis. Stat. § 802.03 (1999-2000). [7] As the court of appeals correctly noted, the customers failed to argue that Time Warner had a duty to reveal this cost-accounting information, an element necessary to establish fraud by omission.”
Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 2004 WI 32 (Wis. 2004). “Wis. Stat. § 802.03 (2). [9] ¶ 18. The injury complained of here is diminution in value onlythe plaintiffs allege that their motorcycles are worth less than they paid for them.”
Kaloti Enter., Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co., 2005 WI 111 (Wis. 2005). “02 and 802.03(2) (2001-02) [6] that regard, respectively, pleadings generally and pleadings in cases of fraud.”
MacH v. Allison, 2003 WI App 11 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “" Wis. Stat. § 802.03 (6). We conclude that the first amended complaint does meet this standard and does state a claim for relief.”
Butcher v. Ameritech Corp., 2007 WI App 5 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “The court held that the first ground was not a mistake of fact, but was a mistake of law.”
John Doe 67C v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 2005 WI 123 (Wis. 2005). “Wis. Stat. § 802.03 (2) ("In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.”
Archie A. Talley v. Mustafa Mustafa, 911 N.W.2d 55 (Wis. 2018). “Talley's negligent supervision claim to satisfy a standard of pleading we traditionally require only of matters sounding in fraud.”
Radlein v. Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins., 345 N.W.2d 874 (Wis. 1984). “The allegations of fraud did not set forth the particular circumstances constituting fraud as required under sec. 802.03(2), Stats., [6] nor did plaintiff submit supporting papers setting forth specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue as to either fraud or coercion.”
Adam R. Mayhugh v. State of Wisconsin, 2015 WI 77 (Wis. 2015). “Wis. Stat. §§ 802.03 , 802.06. In other words, not every entity can be named as a party in a lawsuit.”
— Wis. Stat. § 802.03(2) — 31 cases
Chris Hinrichs v. DOW Chem. Co., 2020 WI 2 (Wis. 2020). “6, 2019) (per curiam) (affirming in part and reversing in part an order of the circuit court for Waukesha County, Kathryn W.”
Kaloti Enter., Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co., 2005 WI 111 (Wis. 2005). “02 and 802.03(2) (2001-02) [6] that regard, respectively, pleadings generally and pleadings in cases of fraud.”
Radlein v. Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins., 345 N.W.2d 874 (Wis. 1984). “The allegations of fraud did not set forth the particular circumstances constituting fraud as required under sec. 802.03(2), Stats., [6] nor did plaintiff submit supporting papers setting forth specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue as to either fraud or coercion.”
Putnam v. Time Warner Cable of Se. Wisconsin, Ltd. P'ship, 2002 WI 108 (Wis. 2002). “Wis. Stat. § 802.03 (1999-2000). [7] As the court of appeals correctly noted, the customers failed to argue that Time Warner had a duty to reveal this cost-accounting information, an element necessary to establish fraud by omission.”
John Doe 1 v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 2007 WI 95 (Wis. 2007).
— Wis. Stat. § 802.03(3) — 1 case
FAWD, LLC v. Bernadette R. Fisher Trust (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 802.03(6) — 12 cases
Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisors LLC, 2014 WI 86 (Wis. 2014). “In short, we will dismiss a complaint if, under the guise of notice pleading, the complaint before us requires the court to indulge in too much speculation leaving too much to the imagination of the court.”
Badger Bearing, Inc. v. Drives & Bearings, Inc., 331 N.W.2d 847 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983).
Starobin v. Northridge Lakes Dev. Co., 287 N.W.2d 747 (Wis. 1980).
Hart v. Bennet, 2003 WI App 231 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
Tatur v. Solsrud, 498 N.W.2d 232 (Wis. 1993).
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.