Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 806 — CIVIL PROCEDURE — JUDGMENT
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 806.01 (2026)

Judgment

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
806.01806.01 Judgment.
806.01(1)(1) 
806.01(1)(a)(a) A judgment is the determination of the action. It may be final or interlocutory.
806.01(1)(b)(b) Each judgment shall specify the relief granted or other determination of the action, and the name and place of residence of each party to the action.
806.01(1)(c)(c) Every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded the relief in the pleadings. If there be no answer the relief granted to the plaintiff shall not exceed that demanded in the complaint. If the amount of money sought was excluded from the demand for judgment, as required under s. 802.02 (1m), the court shall require the plaintiff to specify the amount of money claimed and provide that information to the court and to the other parties prior to the court rendering judgment.
806.01(2)(2) If a partial judgment is proper in an action with several parties, the court in its discretion, may render judgment against one or more of the defendants and dismiss or permit the action to proceed against the others. In case of a finding substantially disposing of a claim on its merits, but leaving an account to be taken or a condition to be performed in order fully to determine the rights of the parties, an interlocutory judgment may be rendered disposing of all issues covered by the finding and reserving final judgment.
806.01 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 715 (1975); 1975 c. 218; 1985 a. 145; 1987 a. 256.
806.01 AnnotationAn order filed after verdict that gave the plaintiff the option of accepting a reduced judgment or a new trial limited to the issue of damages was not a “judgment” under this section. Collins v. Gee, 82 Wis. 2d 376, 263 N.W.2d 158 (1978).
806.01 AnnotationOnly the damages demanded may be awarded in a default judgment. Because the complaint did not contain a specific damage claim in accordance with s. 802.02 (1m), the plaintiff’s failure to serve an affidavit setting forth the amount of its claimed damages was grounds for reversing a default judgment. Stein v. Illinois State Assistance Commission, 194 Wis. 2d 775, 535 N.W.2d 101 (Ct. App. 1995).
806.01 AnnotationWhile a written judgment clear on its face is not open to construction, the trial court has the authority to construe an ambiguous judgment to effectuate the trial court’s objective. A clarification is not a modification or amendment of the judgment. Because the judge who drafted the ambiguous language has a superior practical knowledge of its meaning, when the judge resolves an ambiguity based on the judge’s experience of the trial and uses a reasonable rationale, an appellate court is to affirm the clarification. Cashin v. Cashin, 2004 WI App 92, 273 Wis. 2d 754, 681 N.W.2d 255, 03-1010.
806.01 AnnotationUse of a legal term of art is not necessary to incorporate documents. Documents may be incorporated in an order or other legal document without being physically attached to the document. Carney v. CNH Health & Welfare Plan, 2007 WI App 205, 305 Wis. 2d 443, 740 N.W.2d 625, 06-1529.
806.01 AnnotationThere need not be a specific injunction against the particular action to apply contempt sanctions to an order. An order or judgment that requires specific conduct, either to do, or to refrain from, specific actions, can be enforced by contempt. Neither s. 785.01 (1) nor case law requires that an order contain the specific term “enjoin” or “injunction” to allow the court to use contempt powers to enforce its orders, nor is the possibility of a separate civil action a bar to use of contempt to enforce a court order. Carney v. CNH Health & Welfare Plan, 2007 WI App 205, 305 Wis. 2d 443, 740 N.W.2d 625, 06-1529.
Down
Loading...
Loading...
× Details for
PDF view
Link (Permanent link)
Bookmark this location
 View toggle
 Go to top of document
Search in this chapter
 Search in this section
 Search in this agency
 Search in this chapter group
 Search in this chapter
 Search in this section
 Cross references for section
 Acts affecting this section
 References to this
 1970 Statutes Annotations
 Appellate Court Citations
 Administrative Code Index
Reference lines
 Clear highlighting
806.01 AnnotationA party to a judgment is obligated to follow the court’s judgment unless it is modified in a proceeding in the circuit court or on appeal. A judgment imposes a legal obligation, and violating it can subject an individual to contempt proceedings. This is true even if the judgment was entered in error, unless the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the judgment. Tensfeldt v. Haberman, 2009 WI 77, 319 Wis. 2d 329, 768 N.W.2d 641, 07-1638.
806.01 AnnotationAn otherwise valid judgment can be enforced against a legal entity when the judgment is entered against the name under which the legal entity does business. If the name under which a person or corporation does business is “simply another way to refer to” a single legal entity and constitutes no entity distinct from the person or corporation who does business, then a judgment against the “doing business as” name is enforceable against the legal entity from which it is indistinct. Paul Davis Restoration of S.E. Wisconsin, Inc. v. Paul Davis Restoration of Northeast Wisconsin, 2013 WI 49, 347 Wis. 2d 614, 831 N.W.2d 413, 11-1121.
806.01 AnnotationThe New Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure: Chapters 805-807. Graczyk. 59 MLR 671 (1976).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Nat'l Operating, L.P. v. Mut. Life Ins., 2001 WI 87 (Wis. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nat'l Operating, L.P. v. Mut. Life Ins., 2001 WI 87 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 4× “Wis. Stat. § 806.01 (1)(c); [17] Klaus, 106 Wis.”
Stein v. Illinois State Assistance Comm'n, 535 N.W.2d 101 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 16× “ISAC raises three contentions: (1) that the trial court entered a judgment in violation of §§ 806.01 and 806.02, Stats., which voids the judgment; (2) that the trial court erred in awarding $25,000 in punitive damages because Marc D.”
Booth v. Am. States Ins., 544 N.W.2d 921 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 9× “3 Section 806.01(1), Stats., provides in relevant part: (a) A judgment is the determination of the action.”
Soderlund v. Zibolski, 2016 WI App 6 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “For the first time in his reply brief, Soderlund discusses additional cases, and then in a submission of supplemental case authority, mentions Wis. Stat. § 806.01 (l)(c), which provides: "Every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is…”
Osman v. Phipps, 2002 WI App 170 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “" Wis. Stat. § 806.01 (2). Either a final or an interlocutory judgment requires that "a decision on the merits has been made.”
Boerner v. LVNV Funding LLC, 326 F. Supp. 3d 665 (E.D. Wis. 2018). · cites it 2× “See Wis. Stat. § 806.01 ; Menomonie Farmers Credit Union v.”
Harding v. Kumar, 2001 WI App 195 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “The trial court noted that although Wis. Stat. § 806.01 (l)(b) provides that "[e]ach judgment shall specify the relief granted," the December 1, 1998, judgments only taxed costs against those parties against whom the trial court ruled in its October 22, 1998, order for judgment,…”
Derrick v. Richard L. Grafe Commodities, Inc. (In Re Derrick), 190 B.R. 346 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1995). · cites it 2× “Once a judgment has been “properly docketed,” it becomes a lien upon the property of the debtor located in the county in which it was docketed.”
Shuput v. Lauer, 325 N.W.2d 321 (Wis. 1982). “Sec. 806.01(2), Stats. 1979-80, describes an interlocutory judgment as a “finding substantially disposing of a claim on its merits but leaving an account to be taken or a condition to be performed in order fully to determine the rights of the parties.”
Berna-Mork v. Jones, 496 N.W.2d 637 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “Section 806.01(l)(c) provides: "Every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in the pleadings.”
Kevin P. Gerard v. Michael J. Gerard, 780 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2015). “We then ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of our jurisdiction in light of this ongoing state court appeal. After the benefit of supplemental briefing, we are confident that we have jurisdiction over the underlying interlocutory judgment adjudicated by the bankruptcy…”
Thomas/Van Dyken Jt. Venture v. Van Dyken, 279 N.W.2d 459 (Wis. 1979). · cites it 2× “Sec. 806.01, Stats. 1977 ; 9 Collins v. Gee, 82 Wis.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 806.01(1) — 3 cases
Booth v. Am. States Ins., 544 N.W.2d 921 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “3 Section 806.01(1), Stats., provides in relevant part: (a) A judgment is the determination of the action.”
Otradovec v. City of Green Bay, 347 N.W.2d 614 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984).
Miller v. Smith, 302 N.W.2d 468 (Wis. 1981).
— Wis. Stat. § 806.01(1)(a) — 2 cases
Dane Cnty. v. Jeramiah Bradley (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
Sarah Diane Kraemer v. Benjamin Dean Traun (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 806.01(1)(b) — 2 cases
Peoples State Bank v. Debra K. McCarty (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
Melvin D. Graham-Jackson v. Sandra Martin (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 806.01(1)(c) — 1 case
Nat'l Operating, L.P. v. Mut. Life Ins., 2001 WI 87 (Wis. 2001). “Wis. Stat. § 806.01 (1)(c); [17] Klaus, 106 Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 806.01(2) — 3 cases
Shuput v. Lauer, 325 N.W.2d 321 (Wis. 1982). “Sec. 806.01(2), Stats. 1979-80, describes an interlocutory judgment as a “finding substantially disposing of a claim on its merits but leaving an account to be taken or a condition to be performed in order fully to determine the rights of the parties.”
Thomas/Van Dyken Jt. Venture v. Van Dyken, 279 N.W.2d 459 (Wis. 1979). “Sec. 806.01, Stats. 1977 ; 9 Collins v. Gee, 82 Wis.”
S. Wisconsin Cattle Credit Co. v. Lemkau, 412 N.W.2d 159 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
— Wis. Stat. § 806.01(c) — 1 case
Shubat, Chelsea v. Cave Enter. Operations, LLC (W.D. Wis. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 806.01(l)(a) — 3 cases
Booth v. Am. States Ins., 544 N.W.2d 921 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “3 Section 806.01(1), Stats., provides in relevant part: (a) A judgment is the determination of the action.”
Osman v. Phipps, 2002 WI App 170 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “" Wis. Stat. § 806.01 (2). Either a final or an interlocutory judgment requires that "a decision on the merits has been made.”
Hartman v. Winnebago Cnty., 561 N.W.2d 768 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
— Wis. Stat. § 806.01(l)(b) — 4 cases
Mathias v. St. Catherine's Hosp., Inc., 569 N.W.2d 330 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
Osman v. Phipps, 2002 WI App 170 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “" Wis. Stat. § 806.01 (2). Either a final or an interlocutory judgment requires that "a decision on the merits has been made.”
Harding v. Kumar, 2001 WI App 195 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “The trial court noted that although Wis. Stat. § 806.01 (l)(b) provides that "[e]ach judgment shall specify the relief granted," the December 1, 1998, judgments only taxed costs against those parties against whom the trial court ruled in its October 22, 1998, order for judgment,…”
Com. Mortg. & Fin. Co. v. Clerk of the Circuit Court, 2004 WI App 204 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wis. Stat. § 806.01(l)(c) — 3 cases
Stein v. Illinois State Assistance Comm'n, 535 N.W.2d 101 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “ISAC raises three contentions: (1) that the trial court entered a judgment in violation of §§ 806.01 and 806.02, Stats., which voids the judgment; (2) that the trial court erred in awarding $25,000 in punitive damages because Marc D.”
Berna-Mork v. Jones, 496 N.W.2d 637 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “Section 806.01(l)(c) provides: "Every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in the pleadings.”
Nat'l Operating, L.P. v. Mut. Life Ins., 2001 WI 87 (Wis. 2001). “Wis. Stat. § 806.01 (1)(c); [17] Klaus, 106 Wis.”
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.