Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 805.16 (2026)
Time for motions after verdict
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
805.16(1)(1) Motions after verdict shall be filed and served within 20 days after the verdict is rendered, unless the court, within 20 days after the verdict is rendered, sets a longer time by an order specifying the dates for filing motions, briefs or other documents.
805.16(2)(2) The time for hearing arguments on motions after verdict shall be not less than 10 nor more than 60 days after the verdict is rendered, unless enlarged pursuant to motion under s. 801.15 (2) (a).
805.16(3)(3) If within 90 days after the verdict is rendered the court does not decide a motion after verdict on the record or the judge, or the clerk at the judge’s written direction, does not sign an order deciding the motion, the motion is considered denied and judgment shall be entered on the verdict.
805.16(4)(4) Notwithstanding sub. (1), a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence may be made at any time within one year after verdict. Unless an order granting or denying the motion is entered within 90 days after the motion is made, it shall be deemed denied.
805.16(5)(5) The time limits in this section for filing motions do not apply to a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that is brought under s. 974.06.
805.16 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 711 (1975); Sup. Ct. Order, 118 Wis. 2d xiii (1984); Sup. Ct. Order, 136 Wis. 2d xxv (1987); Sup. Ct. Order 160 Wis. 2d xiii (1991); 2001 a. 16.
805.16 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1984: The requirement that the judge set dates for filing and hearing motions after verdict is repealed in favor of a time limit for such motions. The prior rule encouraged frivolous motions and caused unnecessary hearings. [Re Order effective July 1, 1984]
805.16 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1986: Sub. (1) specifies that the trial court may allow more than 20 days for motions after verdict to be filed, if a schedule for the filing of motions and supporting materials is ordered within that time.
805.16 NoteSub. (2) clarifies that the time for hearing motions after verdict may be enlarged upon motion and good cause shown. However, any such enlargement does not affect the requirement that the motion be decided within 90 days after the verdict is rendered. See sub. (3) and s. 801.15 (2) (c), Stats.
Effective date noteSub. (4) is revised to require that a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence be decided within 90 days after it is made. The prior statute required such motions to be decided within 30 days after hearing, but did not require the hearing to be held within any specified time. [Re Order eff. 7-1-87]
Effective date noteJudicial Council Note, 1991: Sub. (3) is rewritten to clarify that if a motion after verdict is granted within 90 days, it will not be deemed denied merely because such order is not entered within 90 days after verdict. [Re Order eff. 7-1-91]
805.16 AnnotationMotions for directed verdicts and motions to dismiss made at the close of the plaintiff’s case are motions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence under this section. Jos. P. Jansen Co. v. Milwaukee Area District Board of Vocational, Technical & Adult Education, 105 Wis. 2d 1, 312 N.W.2d 813 (1981).
805.16 AnnotationTime periods under this section may not be enlarged by showing excusable neglect under s. 801.15 (2) (a). Brookhouse v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 130 Wis. 2d 166, 387 N.W.2d 82 (Ct. App. 1986).
805.16 AnnotationFailure to present timely postverdict motions does not deprive the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review a judgment. Hartford Insurance Co. v. Wales, 138 Wis. 2d 508, 406 N.W.2d 426 (1987).
805.16 AnnotationOnce the trial court loses authority to set aside a verdict under this section by failing to act within 90 days, the court cannot achieve the same result by vacating the judgment under s. 806.07 (1) (h). Manly v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 139 Wis. 2d 249, 407 N.W.2d 306 (Ct. App. 1987).
805.16 AnnotationThe trial court is not competent to consider sub. (1) motions if the movant fails to timely file the motions and fails to obtain an extension before expiration of the 20-day period. Ahrens-Cadillac Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Belongia, 151 Wis. 2d 763, 445 N.W.2d 744 (Ct. App. 1989).
805.16 AnnotationTrial court actions under this section permitted pending appeal under s. 808.075 are subject to sub. (1) time limits. Schmidt v. Smith, 162 Wis. 2d 363, 469 N.W.2d 855 (Ct. App. 1991).
805.16 AnnotationThis section applies to trial-related motions. An award of attorney fees is not trial-related. Gorton v. American Cyanamid Co., 194 Wis. 2d 203, 533 N.W.2d 746 (1995).
805.16 AnnotationA sexually violent person committed under ch. 980 preserves the right to appeal, as a matter of right, by filing postverdict motions within 20 days of the commitment order. State v. Treadway, 2002 WI App 195, 257 Wis. 2d 467, 651 N.W.2d 334, 00-2957.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: N. Air Servs., Inc. v. Link, 2011 WI 75 (Wis. 2011).
N. Air Servs., Inc. v. Link, 2011 WI 75 (Wis. 2011). “The order of the court of appeals, which was issued separately, reversed the circuit court order remitting a punitive damages award against Jack, reasoning that Jack's postverdict motion requesting the remittitur was untimely filed under Wis.”
State v. Henley, 2010 WI 97 (Wis. 2010). “15 (1)? Relatedly, is such a challenge subject to the time limitations contained in Wis. Stat. § 805.16 (1), or may a convicted criminal defendant file a motion for a new trial under § 805.”
Northridge Co. v. W. R. Grace & Co., 556 N.W.2d 345 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “As we have emphasized: Section 805.16, STATS., provides fair warning that a litigant who fails to make timely motions after verdict acts at his or her peril.”
Robert L. Kimble v. Land Concepts, Inc., 2014 WI 21 (Wis. 2014). “See Wis. Stat. § 805.16 (1). We address this argument in part IV(A) of this opinion.”
State v. Abbott Labs., 2012 WI 62 (Wis. 2012). “The Circuit Court Resolved the Post-verdict Motion within 90 Days, as Required by Wis. Stat. § 805.16 (3) ¶ 87. As a threshold matter, Pharmacia argues that the circuit court had no authority to reduce the number of violations because it did so more than 90 days after the jury…”
Schmidt v. Smith, 469 N.W.2d 855 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “] should not be controlling because it was decided under former sec. 805.16, Stats. (1985-86), which allowed twenty days for filing postverdict motions but did not, as the present version does, authorize the trial court to extend the deadline.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Lyons, 405 N.W.2d 354 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “Therefore, under sec. 805.16, Stats., all motions after verdict are deemed denied and we review them from this perspective.”
Hartford Ins. v. Wales, 406 N.W.2d 426 (Wis. 1987). “The question presented is whether a party’s failure to file postverdict motions in the trial court within twenty days following verdict, as set forth in sec. 805.16, Stats., deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the judgment on the verdict…”
Jos. P. Jansen Co. v. Milwaukee Area Dist. Bd. of Vocational, Technical & Adult Educ., 312 N.W.2d 813 (Wis. 1981). “Jansen appealed this decision, arguing that MATC’s motion for directed verdict should be denied because the trial court did not enter its order granting the motion within the time period specified in sec. 805.16, Stats. (90 days) and, further, that there was credible evidence to…”
Ahrens-Cadillac Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Belongia, 445 N.W.2d 744 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “(1985-86), 1 which allowed twenty days for filing postverdict motions but did not, as the present version does, authorize the trial court to extend the deadline.”
Anderson v. City of Milwaukee, 559 N.W.2d 563 (Wis. 1997). “Accordingly, the motion was considered denied under Wis. Stat. § 805.16 (3) after the passage of ninety days.”
Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Ins., 2012 WI 26 (Wis. 2012). “The circuit court denied the plaintiffs motion by operation of law when it *158 failed to act on the motion within 90 days after the verdict was rendered, as required by Wis. Stat. § 805.16 (3) (1991-92). Id. The court of appeals affirmed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 805.16(1) — 12 cases
State v. Henley, 2010 WI 97 (Wis. 2010). “15 (1)? Relatedly, is such a challenge subject to the time limitations contained in Wis. Stat. § 805.16 (1), or may a convicted criminal defendant file a motion for a new trial under § 805.”
Northridge Co. v. W. R. Grace & Co., 556 N.W.2d 345 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “As we have emphasized: Section 805.16, STATS., provides fair warning that a litigant who fails to make timely motions after verdict acts at his or her peril.”
Schmidt v. Smith, 469 N.W.2d 855 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “] should not be controlling because it was decided under former sec. 805.16, Stats. (1985-86), which allowed twenty days for filing postverdict motions but did not, as the present version does, authorize the trial court to extend the deadline.”
Ahrens-Cadillac Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Belongia, 445 N.W.2d 744 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “(1985-86), 1 which allowed twenty days for filing postverdict motions but did not, as the present version does, authorize the trial court to extend the deadline.”
N. Air Servs., Inc. v. Link, 2011 WI 75 (Wis. 2011). “The order of the court of appeals, which was issued separately, reversed the circuit court order remitting a punitive damages award against Jack, reasoning that Jack's postverdict motion requesting the remittitur was untimely filed under Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 805.16(2) — 1 case
Winnebago Cnty. DHS v. B.K.V. (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wis. Stat. § 805.16(3) — 11 cases
State v. Abbott Labs., 2012 WI 62 (Wis. 2012). “The Circuit Court Resolved the Post-verdict Motion within 90 Days, as Required by Wis. Stat. § 805.16 (3) ¶ 87. As a threshold matter, Pharmacia argues that the circuit court had no authority to reduce the number of violations because it did so more than 90 days after the jury…”
Brandner v. Allstate Ins., 512 N.W.2d 753 (Wis. 1994).
Gorton v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 533 N.W.2d 746 (Wis. 1995).
Bialk v. Milwaukee Cnty., 509 N.W.2d 334 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
Chicago & North W. R.R. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 283 N.W.2d 603 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979).
— Wis. Stat. § 805.16(4) — 1 case
State v. Henley, 2010 WI 97 (Wis. 2010). “15 (1)? Relatedly, is such a challenge subject to the time limitations contained in Wis. Stat. § 805.16 (1), or may a convicted criminal defendant file a motion for a new trial under § 805.”
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.