Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 805.15 (2026)
New trials
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
805.15(1)(1) Motion. A party may move to set aside a verdict and for a new trial because of errors in the trial, or because the verdict is contrary to law or to the weight of evidence, or because of excessive or inadequate damages, or because of newly-discovered evidence, or in the interest of justice. Motions under this subsection may be heard as prescribed in s. 807.13. Orders granting a new trial on grounds other than in the interest of justice, need not include a finding that granting a new trial is also in the interest of justice.
805.15(2)(2) Order. Every order granting a new trial shall specify the grounds therefor. No order granting a new trial shall be valid or effective unless the reasons that prompted the court to make such order are set forth on the record, or in the order or in a written decision. In such order, the court may grant, deny or defer the awarding of costs.
805.15(3)(3) Except as provided in ss. 974.07 (10) (b) and 980.101 (2) (b), a new trial shall be ordered on the grounds of newly-discovered evidence if the court finds that:
805.15(3)(b)(b) The moving party’s failure to discover the evidence earlier did not arise from lack of diligence in seeking to discover it; and
805.15(4)(4) Alternate motions; conditional order. If the court grants a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or a motion to change answer and render judgment in accordance with the answer so changed, or a renewed motion for directed verdict, the court shall also rule on the motion for new trial, if any, by determining whether it should be granted if the judgment is thereafter vacated or reversed, and shall specify the grounds for granting or denying the motion for new trial. If the motion for a new trial is thus conditionally granted and the judgment has been reversed on appeal, the new trial shall proceed unless the appellate court shall have otherwise ordered. In case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally denied, the appellee may assert error in that denial; and if the judgment is reversed on appeal, subsequent proceedings shall be in accordance with the order of the appellate court.
805.15(5)(5) Appeal. If the court denies a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or a motion to change answer and render judgment in accordance with the answer so changed, or a renewed motion for directed verdict, the party who prevailed on that motion may, as appellee, assert for the first time, grounds which entitle the party to a new trial in the event the appellate court concludes that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or motion to change answer and render judgment in accordance with the answer so changed, or a renewed motion for directed verdict. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, nothing in this section precludes it from determining that the appellee is entitled to a new trial, or from directing the trial court to determine whether a new trial shall be granted.
805.15(6)(6) Excessive or inadequate verdicts. If a trial court determines that a verdict is excessive or inadequate, not due to perversity or prejudice or as a result of error during trial (other than an error as to damages), the court shall determine the amount which as a matter of law is reasonable, and shall order a new trial on the issue of damages, unless within 10 days the party to whom the option is offered elects to accept judgment in the changed amount. If the option is not accepted, the time period for petitioning the court of appeals for leave to appeal the order for a new trial under ss. 808.03 (2) and 809.50 commences on the last day of the option period.
805.15 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 708 (1975); 1975 c. 218; 1979 c. 110; 1983 a. 219; Sup. Ct. Order, 141 Wis. 2d xiii (1987); 2001 a. 16.
805.15 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1983: Sub. (6) is amended to codify the holding of Wick v. Mueller, 105 Wis. 2d 191, 313 N.W.2d 749 (1982) that orders for new trials under this subsection are not appealable as of right and that the time period for seeking leave to appeal under ss. 808.03 (2) and 809.50, stats., is computed from the last day of the option period set forth in the trial court’s order. [Bill 151-S]
805.15 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (1) is amended to allow motions for new trial to be heard by telephone conference. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1988]
805.15 AnnotationA statement that the verdict is contrary to the weight of evidence will not support an order granting a new trial in the interest of justice. DeGroff v. Schmude, 71 Wis. 2d 554, 238 N.W.2d 730 (1976).
805.15 AnnotationThat an expert listed in a pretrial order was not called as a witness at trial and the expert’s report was admitted did not constitute grounds for granting a new trial. Karl v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 78 Wis. 2d 284, 254 N.W.2d 255 (1977).
805.15 AnnotationIf the answer to one material question shows that the jury answered perversely, the court should set aside the entire verdict unless the court is satisfied that the other questions were not affected by the perversity. Fouse v. Persons, 80 Wis. 2d 390, 259 N.W.2d 92 (1977).
805.15 AnnotationIf there is a reasonable basis for a trial court’s determination under sub. (6) as to the proper verdict amount, the decision will be sustained. Koele v. Radue, 81 Wis. 2d 583, 260 N.W.2d 766 (1978).
805.15 AnnotationWhen a jury award of damages was so inadequate that it indicated prejudice, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a new trial on all issues. Larry v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 88 Wis. 2d 728, 277 N.W.2d 821 (1979).
805.15 AnnotationAn order for a new trial under sub. (6) is not a final order and is not appealable as of right under s. 808.03 (1). Earl v. Marcus, 92 Wis. 2d 13, 284 N.W.2d 690 (Ct. App. 1979).
805.15 AnnotationSub. (6) establishes that one who wishes to take an appeal from an interlocutory order issued by the court must compute the time for appeal from the last day of the option period set forth in the court’s order. Wick v. Mueller, 105 Wis. 2d 191, 313 N.W.2d 799 (1982).
805.15 AnnotationA shockingly low award of damages justified a new trial on that issue. Westfall v. Kottke, 110 Wis. 2d 86, 328 N.W.2d 481 (1983).
805.15 AnnotationA court may order a retrial under sub. (6) on punitive damages alone. Badger Bearing, Inc. v. Drives & Bearings, Inc., 111 Wis. 2d 659, 331 N.W.2d 847 (Ct. App. 1983).
805.15 AnnotationA trial court may not grant a new trial based solely upon unobjected to instructional errors but may use those errors to grant a new trial in the interest of justice. State v. Harp, 150 Wis. 2d 861, 443 N.W.2d 38 (Ct. App. 1989).
805.15 AnnotationA new trial in the interest of justice under sub. (1), when the controversy was not fully tried, is not limited to cases of evidentiary error and does not require a showing of a probable different result in the second trial. State v. Harp, 161 Wis. 2d 773, 469 N.W.2d 210 (Ct. App. 1991).
805.15 AnnotationThe standard for granting a new trial in the interest of justice when the verdict is contrary to the great weight of the evidence is less stringent than for granting a motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence under s. 805.14. Sievert v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 180 Wis. 2d 426, 509 N.W.2d 75 (Ct. App. 1993).
805.15 AnnotationA codefendant’s testimony that the defendant was aware of at trial, but unable to present because the codefendant refused to testify on 5th amendment grounds, was not newly discovered evidence. State v. Jackson, 188 Wis. 2d 187, 525 N.W.2d 739 (Ct. App. 1994).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 144
cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Henley, 2010 WI 97 (Wis. 2010).
State v. Henley, 2010 WI 97 (Wis. 2010). “Years later, after charges against his two co-defendants had been dismissed, Henley moved for a new trial under Wis. Stat. § 805.15 (1) in the interest of justice on the same grounds — the absence of the pur *551 portedly crucial testimony — that had already been rejected by…”
N. Air Servs., Inc. v. Link, 2011 WI 75 (Wis. 2011). “As Jay correctly notes, Wisconsin courts have continued Gillard's interpretation when addressing the current postverdict motion statutes, holding that Wis. Stat. §§ 805.15 and 805.16 "apply specifically to motions after verdict in jury cases.”
State v. Jeffrey C. Denny, 2017 WI 17 (Wis. 2017). “" Wis. Stat. § 805.15 (3). Subsection (11) requires a court to "refer the movant to the state public defender for determination of indigency and appointment of counsel under s.”
State v. Avery, 2013 WI 13 (Wis. 2013). “These statutes would make no sense if motions under § 805.”
Lagerstrom v. Myrtle Werth Hosp.-Mayo Health Sys., 2005 WI 124 (Wis. 2005). “" [52] In the alternative, the estate argues that this court should determine the reasonable value of the funeral expenses and order the defendants to accept additur under Wis. Stat. § 805.15 (6) [53] or retry the issue of the funeral expenses.”
State v. Harp, 469 N.W.2d 210 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “The issues are: (1) whether the trial court has authority under sec. 805.15(1), Stats., 1 to set aside a verdict and order a new trial on grounds that the real controversy was not fully *775 tried; (2) if so, whether the exercise of that authority is limited to errors relating…”
State v. McCallum, 561 N.W.2d 707 (Wis. 1997). “See also Wis. Stat. § 805.15 (3) (test for new civil trial on basis of newly discovered evidence) and § 972.”
Marriage of Wenzel v. Wenzel, 2017 WI App 75 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “07 (l)(b) and Wis. Stat. § 805.15 (3), the postjudgment court erroneously exercised its discretion and erred as a matter of law because it added new requirements to obtain relief.”
MacHerey v. Home Ins., 516 N.W.2d 434 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “We also conclude, however, that the trial court properly granted Home's alternative motion for a new trial, based on the weight of the evidence, pursuant to § 805.15(1), STATS. Further, we conclude that Home waived its challenge to an evidentiary ruling of the trial court…”
State v. Vennemann, 508 N.W.2d 404 (Wis. 1993). “, 2 Vennemann is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and the state's failure to disclose, prior to trial, a witness statement exculpating him; and (4) whether a new trial is warranted in the interest of justice, pursuant to sec. 805.15(1), Stats. 3 We hold…”
State v. Harp, 443 N.W.2d 38 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “1925, the predecessor to sec. 805.15, Stats. Ch. 286, sec. 1, Laws of 1925.”
Douglas-Hanson Co., Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co., 598 N.W.2d 262 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Goodrich also sought a new trial pursuant to § 805.15(1), Stats., based on alleged prejudicial errors at trial.”
— Wis. Stat. § 805.15(1) — 53 cases
State v. Henley, 2010 WI 97 (Wis. 2010). “Years later, after charges against his two co-defendants had been dismissed, Henley moved for a new trial under Wis. Stat. § 805.15 (1) in the interest of justice on the same grounds — the absence of the pur *551 portedly crucial testimony — that had already been rejected by…”
State v. Harp, 469 N.W.2d 210 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “The issues are: (1) whether the trial court has authority under sec. 805.15(1), Stats., 1 to set aside a verdict and order a new trial on grounds that the real controversy was not fully *775 tried; (2) if so, whether the exercise of that authority is limited to errors relating…”
MacHerey v. Home Ins., 516 N.W.2d 434 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “We also conclude, however, that the trial court properly granted Home's alternative motion for a new trial, based on the weight of the evidence, pursuant to § 805.15(1), STATS. Further, we conclude that Home waived its challenge to an evidentiary ruling of the trial court…”
Douglas-Hanson Co., Inc. v. BF Goodrich Co., 598 N.W.2d 262 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Goodrich also sought a new trial pursuant to § 805.15(1), Stats., based on alleged prejudicial errors at trial.”
State v. Harp, 443 N.W.2d 38 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “1925, the predecessor to sec. 805.15, Stats. Ch. 286, sec. 1, Laws of 1925.”
— Wis. Stat. § 805.15(2) — 2 cases
Krolikowski v. Chicago & Nw. Transp. Co., 278 N.W.2d 865 (Wis. 1979).
Est. of Angel Castillo-Rivera v. Brian C. Brown (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 805.15(3) — 25 cases
Ritt v. Dental Care Assocs., S.C., 543 N.W.2d 852 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Jeffrey C. Denny, 2017 WI 17 (Wis. 2017). “" Wis. Stat. § 805.15 (3). Subsection (11) requires a court to "refer the movant to the state public defender for determination of indigency and appointment of counsel under s.”
State v. Williams, 2001 WI App 155 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
Kocinski v. Home Ins. Co., 452 N.W.2d 360 (Wis. 1990).
In Re Marriage of Franke v. Franke, 2004 WI 8 (Wis. 2004).
— Wis. Stat. § 805.15(3)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Alijouwon T. Watkins, 2021 WI App 37 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Vennemann, 508 N.W.2d 404 (Wis. 1993). “, 2 Vennemann is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and the state's failure to disclose, prior to trial, a witness statement exculpating him; and (4) whether a new trial is warranted in the interest of justice, pursuant to sec. 805.15(1), Stats. 3 We hold…”
State v. Mario T. Ostrum (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
James R. Friso v. Bob Bennett (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 805.15(3)(b) — 2 cases
Mathias v. St. Catherine's Hosp., Inc., 569 N.W.2d 330 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. M.T.W. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 805.15(3)(c) — 1 case
State v. M.T.W. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 805.15(3)(d) — 1 case
Mark Kolodzinski v. Carlos Albelo (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 805.15(4) — 2 cases
Grutzner v. Kruse, 273 N.W.2d 373 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978).
Totsky v. Riteway Bus Serv., Inc., 584 N.W.2d 188 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wis. Stat. § 805.15(5) — 1 case
Sippel v. City of St. Francis, 476 N.W.2d 579 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
— Wis. Stat. § 805.15(5)(a) — 1 case
Flejter v. Est. of Flejter Ex Rel. Migacz, 2001 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
— Wis. Stat. § 805.15(6) — 24 cases
N. Air Servs., Inc. v. Link, 2011 WI 75 (Wis. 2011). “As Jay correctly notes, Wisconsin courts have continued Gillard's interpretation when addressing the current postverdict motion statutes, holding that Wis. Stat. §§ 805.15 and 805.16 "apply specifically to motions after verdict in jury cases.”
Badger Bearing, Inc. v. Drives & Bearings, Inc., 331 N.W.2d 847 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983).
Mgmt. Comput. Servs., Inc. v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., 539 N.W.2d 111 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
Wick v. Mueller, 313 N.W.2d 799 (Wis. 1982).
McGarrity v. Welch Plumbing Co., 312 N.W.2d 37 (Wis. 1981).
— Wis. Stat. § 805.15(8) — 2 cases
Mikaelian v. Woyak, 360 N.W.2d 706 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984).
Chicago & North W. R.R. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 297 N.W.2d 819 (Wis. 1980).
— Wis. Stat. § 805.15(l) — 1 case
State v. Abbott Labs., 2012 WI 62 (Wis. 2012).
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.