Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 802.10 (2026)

Calendar practice

✓ current as of July 2026

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

802.10802.10 Calendar practice.

802.10(1)(1) Application. This section applies to all actions and special proceedings except appeals taken to circuit court; actions seeking the remedy available by certiorari, habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, and quo warranto; actions in which all defendants are in default; provisional remedies; and actions under ss. 49.90 and s. 66.0114 and chs. 48, 54, 102, 108, 227, 348, 767, 778, 799 and 812, and proceedings under chs. 851 to 882.

802.10(3)(3) Scheduling and planning. Except in categories of actions and special proceedings exempted under sub. (1), the circuit court may enter a scheduling order on the court’s own motion or on the motion of a party. The order shall be entered after the court consults with the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented party. The scheduling order may address any of the following:

802.10(3)(a)(a) The time to join other parties.

802.10(3)(b)(b) The time to amend the pleadings.

802.10(3)(c)(c) The time to file motions.

802.10(3)(d)(d) The time to complete discovery.

802.10(3)(e)(e) The time, not more than 30 days after entry of the order, to determine the mode of trial, including a demand for a jury trial and payment of fees under s. 814.61 (4).

802.10(3)(f)(f) The limitation, control and scheduling of depositions and discovery, including the identification and disclosures of expert witnesses, the limitation of the number of expert witnesses and the exchange of the names of expert witnesses.

802.10(3)(g)(g) The dates for conferences before trial, for a final pretrial conference and for trial.

802.10(3)(h)(h) The appropriateness and timing of summary judgment adjudication under s. 802.08.

802.10(3)(i)(i) The advisability of ordering the parties to attempt settlement under s. 802.12.

802.10(3)(j)(j) The need for adopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions or unusual proof problems.

802.10(3)(jm)(jm) The need for discovery of electronically stored information.

802.10(3)(k)(k) Any other matters appropriate to the circumstances of the case, including the matters under sub. (5) (a) to (h).

802.10(5)(5) Pretrial conference. At a pretrial conference, the court may consider any matter that facilitates the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of the action, including the matters under pars. (a) to (h) and sub. (3) (a) to (k). At a pretrial conference, the court may consider and take appropriate action with respect to all of the following:

802.10(5)(a)(a) The formulation and simplification of the issues.

802.10(5)(b)(b) The elimination of frivolous claims or defenses.

802.10(5)(c)(c) The possibility of obtaining party admissions or stipulations that will avoid unnecessary proof.

802.10(5)(d)(d) Any pretrial rulings on the admissibility of evidence, including limitations on the use of expert testimony under s. 907.02.

802.10(5)(e)(e) The identification of witnesses, exhibits and tangible demonstrative evidence.

802.10(5)(f)(f) The need and schedule for filing and exchanging pretrial briefs.

802.10(5)(g)(g) The dates for further conferences and for trial.

802.10(5)(h)(h) The disposition of pending motions.

802.10(6)(6) Authority of participants. An attorney for each party participating in any pretrial conference shall have the authority to enter stipulations and to make admissions regarding all matters that the participants may reasonably anticipate may be discussed. The court may require that a party or the party’s representative be present or reasonably available by telephone to consider possible settlement of the dispute.

802.10(7)(7) Sanctions. Violations of a scheduling or pretrial order are subject to ss. 802.05, 804.12, 805.03, and 895.044.

802.10 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 634 (1975); 1975 c. 218; Sup. Ct. Order, 82 Wis. 2d ix (1978); 1979 c. 32 s. 92 (4); 1979 c. 89, 177; 1981 c. 289; 1985 a. 29 s. 3202 (23); Sup. Ct. Order, 141 Wis. 2d xiii (1987); 1993 a. 486; Sup. Ct. Order No. 95-04, 191 Wis. 2d xxi (1995); 1999 a. 150 s. 672; 2001 a. 30 s. 108; 2005 a. 387; Sup. Ct. Order No. 09-01, 2010 WI 67, filed 7-6-10, eff. 1-1-11; 2011 a. 2.

802.10 NoteJudicial Council Note, 2010: Sub. (3) has been amended to encourage courts to be more active in managing electronic discovery. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. s. 805.06, the court also may appoint a referee to report on complex or expensive discovery issues, including those involving electronically stored information. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 2011]

802.10 AnnotationThe trial court properly granted default judgment against a party failing to appear at a scheduling conference, but the damage amount was not supported by the record. Gaertner v. 880 Corp., 131 Wis. 2d 492, 389 N.W.2d 59 (Ct. App. 1986).

802.10 AnnotationSub. (7) and s. 805.03 apply in criminal cases. A court has power to sanction a tardy attorney under these sections. Failure to delineate the reasons for the sanctions is an erroneous exercise of discretion. Anderson v. Circuit Court, 219 Wis. 2d 1, 578 N.W.2d 633 (1998), 96-3281.

802.10 AnnotationThe scheduling questionnaire used by the circuit court in this case was sufficient to satisfy former sub. (3), 2005 stats. The form was a convenient means to ascertain important scheduling information. Although the form consisted of a single sheet, it addressed many of the basic scheduling questions faced by a circuit court attempting to accommodate the potentially complex timing needs of several parties and their counsel. Hefty v. Strickhouser, 2008 WI 96, 312 Wis. 2d 530, 752 N.W.2d 820, 06-1094.

802.10 AnnotationThe excusable neglect standard set forth in s. 801.15 (2) (a) does not apply to untimely motions to enlarge scheduling order deadlines. Rather, this section provides the applicable standards and procedures courts apply to such motions. Parker v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 2009 WI App 42, 317 Wis. 2d 460, 767 N.W.2d 272, 07-1542.

802.10 AnnotationA party cannot unilaterally extend the deadline to abide by a scheduling order simply by stating that it reserves the right to do so. 260 North 12th Street, LLC v. DOT, 2010 WI App 138, 329 Wis. 2d 748, 792 N.W.2d 572, 09-1557.

802.10 AnnotationAffirmed. 2011 WI 103, 338 Wis. 2d 34, 808 N.W.2d 372, 09-1557.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 83 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Hefty v. Strickhouser, 2008 WI 96 (Wis. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hefty v. Strickhouser, 2008 WI 96 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 108× “08(2) to properly exercise its scheduling discretion under Wis. Stat. § 802.10 . However, the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by entering a scheduling order that incorporated a void local rule and by striking Hefty's response as a sanction for untimely filing,…”

Evelyn C. R. v. Tykila S., 2001 WI 110 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 12× “[5] Although Tykila was not physically present at the fact-finding hearing, she nevertheless "appeared" at the hearing via her counsel.”

Schneller v. St. Mary's Hosp. Med. Ctr., 470 N.W.2d 873 (Wis. 1991). · cites it 20× “The standards and procedures governing pretrial calendar orders appear in sec. 802.10, Stats. Section 802.10(2) provides that "[a]ny order made under this section may on the court's own motion, or upon motion of a party for cause shown, be amended.”

Schneller Ex Rel. Schneller v. St. Mary's Hosp. Med. Ctr., 455 N.W.2d 250 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 19× “[2] In addition, we consider it significant that sec. 802.10, Stats., concerns motions to amend schedules for the several pretrial matters mentioned in the statute whenever it appears that they "cannot .”

260 North 12th Street, LLC v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 2011 WI 103 (Wis. 2011). · cites it 12× “Acting pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 802.10 , 804.12(2), and 805.”

Parker v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund, 2009 WI App 42 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 19× “" Wis. Stat. § 802.10 (3)(f). Section 802.10(7) provides that a court may impose a sanction for a violation of a scheduling or pretrial order.”

Rupert v. Home Mut. Ins., 405 N.W.2d 661 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 18× “03, which specifically provides for dismissal for failing to prosecute, and sec. 802.10, Stats., which states that all proceedings are deemed ready for trial one year after a summons and complaint are filed.”

State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 8× “3 A circuit court has both inherent *11 authority and statutory authority under Wis. Stat. §§ 802.10 (7), 804.12(2)(a), 805.”

In Re Torrance P., Jr., 2006 WI 129 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 8× “[3] A circuit court has both inherent *627 authority and statutory authority under Wis. Stat. §§ 802.10 (7), 804.12(2)(a), 805.”

Steven v. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 2× “2d 1, ¶ 17 (default judgment as a sanction for violation of a court order pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 802.10 (7), 804.12(2)(a), and 805.”

Gaertner v. 880 CORP., 389 N.W.2d 59 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “In an affidavit accompanying the motion, Bihlmire averred that neither he nor 880 received written notice of the scheduling conference as required under sec. 802.10(3)(a), Stats. 8 Bihlmire's affidavit stated: *500 Mail addressed to John Bihlmire or 880 Corporation at 880 Lake…”

In Re Marriage of Guelig v. Guelig, 2005 WI App 212 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “We also rely on Wis. Stat. § 802.10 (5), which sets forth the matters a court might consider at a pretrial conference.”

Show all 83 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 802.10(1) — 2 cases

State Ex Rel. Barksdale v. Litscher, 2004 WI App 130 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).

Barron Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. M. S. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).

— Wis. Stat. § 802.10(2) — 5 cases

Rupert v. Home Mut. Ins., 405 N.W.2d 661 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “03, which specifically provides for dismissal for failing to prosecute, and sec. 802.10, Stats., which states that all proceedings are deemed ready for trial one year after a summons and complaint are filed.”

Schneller v. St. Mary's Hosp. Med. Ctr., 470 N.W.2d 873 (Wis. 1991). “The standards and procedures governing pretrial calendar orders appear in sec. 802.10, Stats. Section 802.10(2) provides that "[a]ny order made under this section may on the court's own motion, or upon motion of a party for cause shown, be amended.”

Kranzush v. Badger State Mut. Cas. Co., 307 N.W.2d 256 (Wis. 1981).

Schneller Ex Rel. Schneller v. St. Mary's Hosp. Med. Ctr., 455 N.W.2d 250 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “[2] In addition, we consider it significant that sec. 802.10, Stats., concerns motions to amend schedules for the several pretrial matters mentioned in the statute whenever it appears that they "cannot .”

Theis v. Short, 2010 WI App 108 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010).

— Wis. Stat. § 802.10(2)(e) — 1 case

Schneider v. Alias, 431 N.W.2d 756 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).

— Wis. Stat. § 802.10(3) — 10 cases

Hefty v. Strickhouser, 2008 WI 96 (Wis. 2008). “08(2) to properly exercise its scheduling discretion under Wis. Stat. § 802.10 . However, the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by entering a scheduling order that incorporated a void local rule and by striking Hefty's response as a sanction for untimely filing,…”

Kox v. Ctr. for Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, S.C., 579 N.W.2d 285 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).

Robin Zahran v. loanDepot (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).

Barron Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. M. S. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).

— Wis. Stat. § 802.10(3)(a) — 4 cases

Johnson v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 470 N.W.2d 859 (Wis. 1991).

Gaertner v. 880 CORP., 389 N.W.2d 59 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “In an affidavit accompanying the motion, Bihlmire averred that neither he nor 880 received written notice of the scheduling conference as required under sec. 802.10(3)(a), Stats. 8 Bihlmire's affidavit stated: *500 Mail addressed to John Bihlmire or 880 Corporation at 880 Lake…”

Siva Truck Leasing, Inc. v. Kurman Distributors, 479 N.W.2d 542 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).

— Wis. Stat. § 802.10(3)(b) — 6 cases

Alexander v. Riegert, 414 N.W.2d 636 (Wis. 1987).

Milwaukee Rescue Mission, Inc. v. Redevelopment Auth. of the City of Milwaukee, 468 N.W.2d 663 (Wis. 1991).

Strong v. Brushafer, 519 N.W.2d 668 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).

— Wis. Stat. § 802.10(3)(d) — 8 cases

Modica v. Verhulst, 536 N.W.2d 466 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).

Johnson v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 455 N.W.2d 657 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).

— Wis. Stat. § 802.10(3)(f) — 3 cases

260 North 12th Street, LLC v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 2011 WI 103 (Wis. 2011). “Acting pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 802.10 , 804.12(2), and 805.”

Edward A. Vanderventer v. Hyundai Motor Am. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).

Daniel Thomas Orzech v. Wisconsin Veterinary Referral Ctr.-Waukesha (WVRC) (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wis. Stat. § 802.10(3)(h) — 1 case

Juneau Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. B. J. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).

— Wis. Stat. § 802.10(5) — 2 cases

In Re Marriage of Guelig v. Guelig, 2005 WI App 212 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “We also rely on Wis. Stat. § 802.10 (5), which sets forth the matters a court might consider at a pretrial conference.”

— Wis. Stat. § 802.10(5)(a) — 1 case

In Re Marriage of Guelig v. Guelig, 2005 WI App 212 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “We also rely on Wis. Stat. § 802.10 (5), which sets forth the matters a court might consider at a pretrial conference.”

— Wis. Stat. § 802.10(5)(f) — 1 case

In Re Marriage of Guelig v. Guelig, 2005 WI App 212 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “We also rely on Wis. Stat. § 802.10 (5), which sets forth the matters a court might consider at a pretrial conference.”

— Wis. Stat. § 802.10(7) — 26 cases

Evelyn C. R. v. Tykila S., 2001 WI 110 (Wis. 2001). “[5] Although Tykila was not physically present at the fact-finding hearing, she nevertheless "appeared" at the hearing via her counsel.”

Dane Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Mable K., 2013 WI 28 (Wis. 2013).

Off. of Lawyer Reg. v. Kelly, 2012 WI 55 (Wis. 2012).

Parker v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund, 2009 WI App 42 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “" Wis. Stat. § 802.10 (3)(f). Section 802.10(7) provides that a court may impose a sanction for a violation of a scheduling or pretrial order.”

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.