Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 803.05 (2026)
Third-party practice
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
803.05(1)(1) At any time after commencement of the action, a defending party, as a 3rd-party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to be served upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to the defending party for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the defending party, or who is a necessary party under s. 803.03. The 3rd-party plaintiff need not obtain leave to implead if he or she serves the 3rd-party summons and 3rd-party complaint not later than 6 months after the summons and complaint are filed or the time set in a scheduling order under s. 802.10; thereafter, the 3rd-party plaintiff must obtain leave on motion upon notice to all parties to the action. The person served with the summons and 3rd-party complaint, hereinafter called the 3rd-party defendant, shall make defenses to the 3rd-party plaintiff’s claim as provided in s. 802.06 and counterclaims against the 3rd-party plaintiff and cross claims against any other defendant as provided in s. 802.07. The 3rd-party defendant may assert against the plaintiff any defenses which the 3rd-party plaintiff has to the plaintiff’s claim. The 3rd-party defendant may also assert any claim against the plaintiff if the claim is based upon the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences as is the plaintiff’s claim against the 3rd-party plaintiff. The plaintiff may assert any claim against the 3rd-party defendant if the claim is based upon the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences as is the plaintiff’s claim against the 3rd-party plaintiff, and the 3rd-party defendant thereupon shall assert defenses as provided in s. 802.06 and counterclaims and cross claims as provided in s. 802.07.
803.05(2)(2) When a counterclaim is asserted against a plaintiff, the plaintiff may cause a 3rd party to be brought in under circumstances which under this section would entitle a defendant to do so.
803.05(3)(3) Oral argument permitted on motions under this section may be heard by telephone under s. 807.13 (1).
803.05 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 648 (1975); 1975 c. 218; Sup. Ct. Order, 82 Wis. 2d ix (1978); Sup. Ct. Order, 141 Wis. 2d xiii (1987); 2005 a. 253; 2007 a. 97.
803.05 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1977: Sub. (1) has been amended to allow a third-party plaintiff to serve the third-party summons and third-party complaint without leave of the court to implead if the third-party summons and third-party complaint are filed not later than 6 months after the summons and complaint in the original action are filed. The new six-month time period has been created since the old time period allowing a third-party plaintiff to file a third-party summons and third-party complaint without the need to obtain leave to implead during the time set in a scheduling order under s. 802.10 can no longer apply in most cases. The use of such a scheduling order is now completely discretionary with the trial judge. [Re Order effective July 1, 1978]
803.05 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (3) [created] allows oral argument permitted on motions under this section to be heard by telephone conference. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1988]
803.05 AnnotationThe statute of limitations is applicable to a claim made under sub. (1). Strassman v. Muranyi, 225 Wis. 2d 784, 594 N.W.2d 398 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-3039.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Maya Elaine Smith v. Jeff Anderson, 2017 WI 43 (Wis. 2017).
Maya Elaine Smith v. Jeff Anderson, 2017 WI 43 (Wis. 2017). “05 provides, in relevant part, that "a defending party, as a 3rd-party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to be served upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to the defending party for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the defending…”
Collins v. Eli Lilly & Co., 342 N.W.2d 37 (Wis. 1984). “However, in order to assure that liability in multiple defendant DES cases is equitably distributed among as many defendants as possible, any defendant may, pursuant to sec. 803.05, Stats., implead as third-party defendants other drug companies which it can allege produced or…”
Strassman v. Muranyi, 594 N.W.2d 398 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “This statute is silent as to whether the three-year statute of limitations applies to claims raised under § 803.05, Stats. Diane argues that because § 803.”
Glaeske v. Shaw, 2003 WI App 71 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “See Wis. Stat. § 803.05 . A party is a "necessary party" if he or she is "subject to service of process" and if either of the following circumstances is present: (a) In the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties; or (b) The person claims…”
Donaldson v. West Bend Mut. Ins., 2009 WI App 134 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “*251 § 803.05(1). See Strassman, 225 Wis. 2d at 788 .”
Starr v. Prairie Harbor Dev. Co., Inc., 900 F. Supp. 230 (E.D. Wis. 1995). “14(a); see also, Wis.Stat. § 803.05(1) (third-party defendant is one “who is or may be liable to the defending party for all or part of the plaintiffs claim against the defending party”).”
Prince Corp. v. Vandenberg, 2015 WI App 55 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “Prince asserts the impleader was improper under Wis. Stat. § 803.05 (1) because the Intervenors' third-party summons and complaint were not filed within six months of the garnishment summons and complaint or with leave of the court.”
Konkel v. Acuity, 2009 WI App 132 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “Because we address the issues raised by Acuity as if it had made the requisite payment to support a valid subrogation claim, we need not resolve whether § 803.05 allows Acuity to circumvent the payment requirement.”
Brian Nelson v. David Loessin, 2020 WI App 72 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 803.05, “Third-party practice,” the third-party complaint asserts that the Rosenthals and Eastons “must be joined in this action” as they are “necessary parties to [the Nelsons’] lawsuit because their absence leaves … Loessin and Allstate[] subject to a substantial risk of…”
Conor Casey v. Town of Bayview, Wisconsin (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 803.05. The Town’s counterclaim sought a declaration regarding the rights and limits of the Platted Easement, the 1992 Easement, and the 1995 Easement “as they may apply to each of the named parties.”
Vill. of Bay City v. David C. Meixner (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 803.05(1) governs third-party practice and provides in pertinent part that [a]t any time after commencement of the action, a defending party, as a 3rd-party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to be served upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be…”
Enbridge Energy Co. v. Dane Cnty., 917 N.W.2d 232 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 803.05(1) (explaining the concept of impleading, which involves a defending party in a pending lawsuit acting as a third-party plaintiff, in order to bring a new person, a third-party defendant, into the lawsuit).”
— Wis. Stat. § 803.05(1) — 8 cases
Strassman v. Muranyi, 594 N.W.2d 398 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “This statute is silent as to whether the three-year statute of limitations applies to claims raised under § 803.05, Stats. Diane argues that because § 803.”
Donaldson v. West Bend Mut. Ins., 2009 WI App 134 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “*251 § 803.05(1). See Strassman, 225 Wis. 2d at 788 .”
Starr v. Prairie Harbor Dev. Co., Inc., 900 F. Supp. 230 (E.D. Wis. 1995). “14(a); see also, Wis.Stat. § 803.05(1) (third-party defendant is one “who is or may be liable to the defending party for all or part of the plaintiffs claim against the defending party”).”
Konkel v. Acuity, 2009 WI App 132 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “Because we address the issues raised by Acuity as if it had made the requisite payment to support a valid subrogation claim, we need not resolve whether § 803.05 allows Acuity to circumvent the payment requirement.”
Vill. of Bay City v. David C. Meixner (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 803.05(1) governs third-party practice and provides in pertinent part that [a]t any time after commencement of the action, a defending party, as a 3rd-party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to be served upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be…”
— Wis. Stat. § 803.05(3) — 1 case
Thunderbird Eng'g, Inc. v. Am. Design, Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
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.