Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (2026)

Uniform declaratory judgments act

✓ current as of July 2026

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

806.04806.04 Uniform declaratory judgments act.

806.04(1)(1) Scope. Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree, except that finality for purposes of filing an appeal as of right shall be determined in accordance with s. 808.03 (1).

806.04(2)(2) Power to construe, etc. Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder. No party shall be denied the right to have declared the validity of any statute or municipal ordinance by virtue of the fact that the party holds a license or permit under such statutes or ordinances.

806.04(3)(3) Before breach. A contract may be construed either before or after there has been a breach thereof.

806.04(4)(4) Representatives, etc. Any person interested as or through a personal representative, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, creditor, devisee, legatee, heir, next of kin, or cestui que trust in the administration of a trust, or of the estate of a decedent, infant, individual adjudicated incompetent, or insolvent, may have a declaration of rights or legal relations in respect to the administration of the trust or estate for any of the following purposes:

806.04(4)(a)(a) To ascertain any class of creditors, devisees, legatees, heirs, next of kin or others; or

806.04(4)(b)(b) To direct the personal representatives or trustees to do or abstain from doing any particular act in their fiduciary capacity; or

806.04(4)(c)(c) To determine any question arising in the administration of the estate or trust, including questions of construction of wills and other writings.

806.04(5)(5) Enumeration not exclusive. The enumeration in subs. (2), (3) and (4) does not limit or restrict the exercise of the general powers conferred in sub. (1) in any proceeding where declaratory relief is sought, in which a judgment or decree will terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty.

806.04(6)(6) Discretionary. The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.

806.04(7)(7) Review. All orders, judgments and decrees under this section may be reviewed as other orders, judgments and decrees.

806.04(8)(8) Supplemental relief. Further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted whenever necessary or proper. The application therefor shall be by petition to a court having jurisdiction to grant the relief. If the application be deemed sufficient, the court shall, on reasonable notice, require any adverse party whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaratory judgment or decree, to show cause why further relief should not be granted forthwith.

806.04(9)(9) Jury trial. When a proceeding under this section involves the determination of an issue of fact, such issue may be tried and determined in the same manner as issues of fact are tried and determined in other civil actions in the court in which the proceeding is pending.

806.04(10)(10) Costs. In any proceeding under this section the court may make such award of costs as may seem equitable and just.

806.04(11)(11) Parties. When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration may prejudice the right of persons not parties to the proceeding. In any proceeding which involves the validity of a municipal ordinance or franchise, the municipality shall be made a party, and shall be entitled to be heard. If a statute, ordinance or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, or to be in violation of or preempted by federal law, or if the construction or validity of a statute is otherwise challenged, the attorney general shall also be served with a copy of the proceeding and be entitled to be heard. If a statute is alleged to be unconstitutional, or to be in violation of or preempted by federal law, or if the construction or validity of a statute is otherwise challenged, the speaker of the assembly, the president of the senate, and the senate majority leader shall also be served with a copy of the proceeding, and the assembly, the senate, and the state legislature are entitled to be heard. If the assembly, the senate, or the joint committee on legislative organization intervenes as provided under s. 803.09 (2m), the assembly shall represent the assembly, the senate shall represent the senate, and the joint committee on legislative organization shall represent the legislature. In any proceeding under this section in which the constitutionality, construction or application of any provision of ch. 227, or of any statute allowing a legislative committee to suspend, or to delay or prevent the adoption of, a rule as defined in s. 227.01 (13) is placed in issue by the parties, the joint committee for review of administrative rules shall be served with a copy of the petition and, with the approval of the joint committee on legislative organization, shall be made a party and be entitled to be heard.

806.04(12)(12) Construction. This section is declared to be remedial; its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations; and is to be liberally construed and administered.

806.04(13)(13) Words construed. The word “person” wherever used in this section, shall be construed to mean any person, partnership, joint stock company, unincorporated association or society, or municipal or other corporation of any character whatsoever.

806.04(14)(14) Provisions severable. The several subsections and provisions of this section except subs. (1) and (2) are declared independent and severable, and the invalidity, if any, of any part or feature thereof shall not affect or render the remainder of the statute invalid or inoperative.

806.04(15)(15) Uniformity of interpretation. This section shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it, and to harmonize, as far as possible, with federal laws and regulations on the subject of declaratory judgments and decrees.

806.04(16)(16) Short title. This section may be cited as the “Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act”.

806.04 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 718 (1975); 1975 c. 218; Sup. Ct. Order, 82 Wis. 2d ix (1978); 1977 c. 449; 1979 c. 38, 89, 175; 1979 c. 330 s. 13; 1979 c. 352, 355; 1981 c. 96 s. 67; 1981 c. 187 s. 10; 1981 c. 390 s. 252; 1983 a. 255 s. 6; 1985 a. 182 s. 57, Sup. Ct. Order, 166 Wis. 2d xix (1992); 2001 a. 102, 109; 2005 a. 177, 387; 2017 a. 369.

806.04 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1977: Sub. (3m), as created by ch. 263, laws of 1973, is added. Sub. (3m), which was created during the time the rules of civil procedure were in the process of being adopted, was inadvertently not included in new s. 806.04 along with the other provisions of former s. 269.56. The only intent of the Judicial Council during the preparation of the Rules of Civil Procedure in regard to old s. 269.56 was to renumber it to s. 806.04. [Re Order effective July 1, 1978]

806.04 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1991: Sub. (1) is amended to clarify that a declaratory judgment is not appealable as of right unless it disposes of the entire matter in litigation as to one or more of the parties. [Re Order effective July 1, 1992]

806.04 AnnotationA hospital’s action for declaratory judgment to define a law enforcement officer’s right to demand that doctors take blood samples for intoxication tests did not lie when the complaint did not cite a statute under which the doctors were threatened with prosecution or sufficient facts to determine the application of a particular statute. Waukesha Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Baird, 45 Wis. 2d 629, 173 N.W.2d 700 (1970).

806.04 AnnotationIn most cases a court may not know that a declaratory judgment would not terminate a controversy giving rise to the proceeding until it has heard the evidence, but a court need not go through trial to arrive at a foregone conclusion when it appears on the face of the complaint that a declaratory judgment will not terminate the controversy. Language in Miller, 208 Wis. 199 (1932), intimating otherwise is modified. American Medical Services, Inc. v. Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 52 Wis. 2d 198, 188 N.W.2d 529 (1971).

806.04 AnnotationSub. (5) qualifies the specific powers enumerated in subs. (1) to (4) and the discretionary power in sub. (6) applies to all cases. Even if a complaint states a cause of action for declaratory relief, it may be dismissed if a declaratory judgment would not terminate the controversy. American Medical Services, Inc. v. Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 52 Wis. 2d 198, 188 N.W.2d 529 (1971).

806.04 AnnotationIn an action for declaratory judgment, the complaint should not be dismissed when the judgment declares the rights on the complaint or the merits are decided. Dismissal is proper when for a valid reason the merits are not reached and the suit should not be entertained. City of Kenosha v. Unified School District No. 1, 55 Wis. 2d 642, 201 N.W.2d 66 (1972).

806.04 AnnotationA declaratory judgement action was an appropriate vehicle for a putative father seeking a determination of his paternity. Slawek v. Stroh, 62 Wis. 2d 295, 215 N.W.2d 9 (1974).

806.04 AnnotationA request for declaratory judgment to declare the proper procedure to be followed in an administrative proceeding could not be entertained because the purpose of the statute was to expedite justice and to avoid long and complicated litigation, not to interrupt legal proceedings presently in operation. State v. WERC, 65 Wis. 2d 624, 223 N.W.2d 543 (1974).

806.04 AnnotationThe service of a copy of the proceedings upon the attorney general under sub. (11) is not only mandatory but goes to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the action in the first instance. Bollhoffer v. Wolke, 66 Wis. 2d 141, 223 N.W.2d 902 (1974).

806.04 AnnotationA declaratory judgment to effect dissolution of a corporation did not lie because: 1) the determination of the corporation’s right to exist would affect members not before the court as parties; 2) sub. (11) required that all persons who “would be affected by the declaration” shall be made parties; and 3) a corporation may only be dissolved by voluntary act of its shareholders or involuntary proceedings initiated by the attorney general. Rudolph v. Indian Hills Estates, Inc., 68 Wis. 2d 768, 229 N.W.2d 671 (1975).

806.04 AnnotationHospitals are “direct objects” of s. 70.11 (4m) for purposes of standing to bring a declaratory judgment action seeking a tax exemption for medical equipment leased by the hospital from a commercial lessor. Madison General Hospital Ass’n v. City of Madison, 71 Wis. 2d 259, 237 N.W.2d 750 (1976).

806.04 AnnotationThe use of the declaratory judgment act to attempt to fix the state’s responsibility to respond to a monetary claim is not authorized. Lister v. Board of Regents, 72 Wis. 2d 282, 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976).

806.04 AnnotationThere is no provision for a suit against the state under s. 269.56 [now this section], and, as a result, declaratory judgments against the state are barred by principles of sovereign immunity. However, declaratory judgment procedure is particularly well-suited, in cases in which such relief is otherwise appropriate, for resolving controversies as to the constitutionality or proper construction and application of statutory provisions. As a result, it has been necessary to engage in a fiction that allows such actions to be brought against the officer or agency charged with administering the statute on the theory that a suit against a state officer or agency is not a suit against the state when it is based on the premise that the officer or agency is acting outside the bounds of constitutional or jurisdictional authority. Lister v. Board of Regents, 72 Wis. 2d 282, 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976).

806.04 AnnotationIn a declaratory judgment action by taxpayers against a school board, legal conclusions in the complaint challenging the constitutionality of a taxing statute were permissible. Discussing declaratory judgment actions. Tooley v. O’Connell, 77 Wis. 2d 422, 253 N.W.2d 335 (1977).

806.04 AnnotationService on the attorney general is a jurisdictional prerequisite under sub. (11) even when the constitutional issue is collateral to or a preliminary step in the determination of the rights sought to be declared. O’Connell v. Board of Education, 82 Wis. 2d 728, 264 N.W.2d 561 (1978).

806.04 AnnotationSub. (11) makes it clear that the legislature did not intend to require that the attorney general be made a party. The purpose of sub. (11) is to give the attorney general the opportunity to defend the statute, ordinance, or franchise against a claim of unconstitutionality. The attorney general can perform this function without being made a party. Town of Walworth v. Village of Fontana-on-Geneva Lake, 85 Wis. 2d 432, 270 N.W.2d 442 (Ct. App. 1978).

806.04 AnnotationService under sub. (11) on the attorney general is timely if made in time to permit a defense against a claim of unconstitutionality. Town of Walworth v. Village of Fontana-on-Geneva Lake, 85 Wis. 2d 432, 270 N.W.2d 442 (Ct. App. 1978).

806.04 AnnotationIf the constitutionality of a statute is challenged in an action other than a declaratory judgment action, the attorney general must be served, but, in this case, the failure to do so at the trial court level was cured by service at the appellate level. William B. Tanner Co. v. Estate of Fessler, 100 Wis. 2d 437, 302 N.W.2d 414 (1981).

806.04 AnnotationThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by declaring rights that would be created if a proposed release agreement were executed. Loy v. Bunderson, 107 Wis. 2d 400, 320 N.W.2d 175 (1982).

806.04 AnnotationAttorney fees are not recoverable as “costs” under sub. (10). Kremers-Urban Co. v. American Employers Insurance Co., 119 Wis. 2d 722, 351 N.W.2d 156 (1984).

806.04 AnnotationUnder sub. (11), the plaintiff must serve the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules within the time limits under s. 893.02. Richards v. Young, 150 Wis. 2d 549, 441 N.W.2d 742 (1989).

806.04 AnnotationThe Declaratory Judgments Act is singularly suited to test the validity of legislative action prior to enforcement. Weber v. Town of Lincoln, 159 Wis. 2d 144, 463 N.W.2d 869 (Ct. App. 1990).

806.04 AnnotationDeclaratory judgment is appropriate if: 1) there is a controversy in which a claim is asserted against a party with an interest in contesting it; 2) the controversy is between adverse parties; 3) the party seeking relief has a legally protectible interest; and 4) the issue in controversy is ripe for determination. Miller Brands-Milwaukee, Inc. v. Case, 162 Wis. 2d 684, 470 N.W.2d 290 (1991).

806.04 AnnotationSupplemental relief under sub. (8) may include attorney fees incurred by an insured in establishing coverage under a policy. Elliott v. Donahue, 169 Wis. 2d 310, 485 N.W.2d 403 (1992).

806.04 AnnotationIf the issue of insurance coverage involves a party not a party to the underlying lawsuit, coverage may be determined by either a bifurcated trial or a separate declaratory judgment action. The plaintiff and any other party asserting a claim in the underlying suit must be named, and consolidation with the underlying action may be required. Fire Insurance Exchange v. Basten, 202 Wis. 2d 74, 549 N.W.2d 690 (1996), 94-3377.

806.04 AnnotationBy definition, ripeness required in a declaratory judgment is different from ripeness required in other actions. A plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment need not actually suffer an injury before seeking relief under sub. (2). Nonetheless, a matter is not ripe unless the facts are sufficiently developed to allow a conclusive adjudication. Milwaukee District Council 48 v. Milwaukee County, 2001 WI 65, 244 Wis. 2d 333, 627 N.W.2d 866, 98-1126.

806.04 AnnotationTo have standing to bring an action for declaratory judgment, a party must have a personal stake in the outcome and must be directly affected by the issues in controversy. A party’s status as a taxpayer, property owner, or one who disagrees with municipal decisions does not confer standing. Lake Country Racquet & Athletic Club, Inc. v. Village of Hartland, 2002 WI App 301, 259 Wis. 2d 107, 655 N.W.2d 189, 02-0198.

806.04 AnnotationSub. (2) does not address the application of the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine. The doctrine may apply even though a party seeks relief that falls within sub. (2). Although administrative agencies do not have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional and the lack of authority has been a basis for not applying the exhaustion doctrine, if the agency has the authority to provide the relief requested without invalidating the rule, a constitutional basis for the claim does not in itself support an exception to the exhaustion rule. Metz v. Veterinary Examining Board, 2007 WI App 220, 305 Wis. 2d 788, 741 N.W.2d 244, 06-1611.

806.04 AnnotationSub. (11) does not require that, when a declaratory judgment as to the validity of a statute or ordinance is sought, every person whose interests are affected by the statute or ordinance must be made a party to the action. If the statute were so construed, the remedy would be rendered impractical and indeed often worthless for determining the validity of legislative enactments, either state or local, since such enactments commonly affect the interests of large numbers of people. Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities, 2008 WI 9, 307 Wis. 2d 1, 745 N.W.2d 1, 05-2540.

806.04 AnnotationRipeness, as it pertains to declaratory judgments, is a legal conclusion subject to de novo review. Olson v. Town of Cottage Grove, 2008 WI 51, 309 Wis. 2d 365, 749 N.W.2d 211, 05-2257.

806.04 AnnotationParties to a written instrument may seek a declaration of the construction or validity of the instrument, and a contract may be construed either before or after a breach. Thus, the plaintiffs did not need to allege a breach of obligations regarding the construction of a driveway over an easement granted in a recorded instrument in order to seek a declaration of those obligations. Mnuk v. Harmony Homes, Inc., 2010 WI App 102, 329 Wis. 2d 182, 790 N.W.2d 514, 09-1178.

806.04 AnnotationThis section should be construed together with the statute on class actions, s. 803.08, and therefore it does not exclude the procedure of representative defense of the interests of a class from an action for declaratory relief. Ewer v. Lake Arrowhead Ass’n, 2012 WI App 64, 342 Wis. 2d 194, 817 N.W.2d 465, 11-0113.

806.04 AnnotationA matter is justiciable if the party seeking declaratory relief has a legal interest in the controversy, that is to say a legally protectable interest, which is often expressed in terms of standing. The plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment interpreting a newly enacted statute was not justiciable when the plaintiffs failed to show how they possibly could be in violation of the statute. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Schimel, 2016 WI App 19, 367 Wis. 2d 712, 877 N.W.2d 604, 14-2085.

806.04 AnnotationLake Country, 2002 WI App 301, stands for the proposition that the successful invocation of taxpayer standing requires an allegation of either direct harm to the plaintiff’s property or a risk of pecuniary loss or substantial injury. The alleged unlawful expenditure of public funds, if otherwise sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, is sufficient to support taxpayer standing. Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2017 WI App 35, 376 Wis. 2d 479, 899 N.W.2d 706, 15-1858.

806.04 AnnotationAffirmed on other grounds. 2018 WI 63, 382 Wis. 2d 1, 913 N.W.2d 131, 15-1858.

806.04 AnnotationIn themselves, doctrines that can confer standing on a party cannot be substituted for a statutory or constitutional provision that creates a legally protectable interest. Standing is an issue that can arise in the first place only if a constitutional or statutory provision underlies the claim. Standing refers to a party’s role that enables it to enforce a substantive right, not to a substantive right in itself. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce v. Evers, 2021 WI App 35, 398 Wis. 2d 164, 960 N.W.2d 442, 20-2081.

806.04 AnnotationAffirmed on other grounds. 2022 WI 38, 401 Wis. 2d 699, 977 N.W.2d 374, 20-2081.

806.04 AnnotationSubs. (1) and (5) together make clear that courts have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations and that sub. (2) does not limit or restrict the exercise of that general power. Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2023 WI 79, 410 Wis. 2d 1, 998 N.W.2d 370, 23-1399.

806.04 AnnotationBecause the Department of Natural Resources operates under the supervision of a board under s. 15.34 (1), and because declaratory judgments can be brought against the officer or agency charged with administering a statute, the board is a proper party to a declaratory judgment challenging some of the department’s policies as invalid and unenforceable rules. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Inc. v. DNR, 2024 WI App 18, 411 Wis. 2d 462, 5 N.W.3d 903, 22-0718.

806.04 AnnotationThe plain language of sub. (11) requires service on the attorney general, speaker of the assembly, president of the senate, and senate majority leader, and nothing in the plain language of sub. (11) indicates that any of these individuals must be named as a party to satisfy the requirements of the statute. Wren v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital Milwaukee, Inc., 2025 WI App 22, 415 Wis. 2d 758, 19 N.W.3d 614, 24-0126.

806.04 AnnotationThere is no authority for the proposition that a governmental entity provided notice of a constitutional challenge to one of its statutes in the context of private litigation must intervene or suffer the consequences. While the attorney general may have a general duty to defend Wisconsin statutes against constitutional attack, this does not mandate intervention and justify the application of preclusion principles. Intervention is a strategic decision left to the better judgment of the attorney general. Flying J, Inc. v. Van Hollen, 597 F. Supp. 2d 848 (2009).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 282 cases (55 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities, 2008 WI 9 (Wis. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities, 2008 WI 9 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 70× “Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (11): ¶¶ 138-143 Conclusion: ¶¶ 144-145 I.”

Olson v. Town of Cottage Grove, 2008 WI 51 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 26× “ANALYSIS ¶ 27 This case presents a complex standard of review issue and a relatively simple substantive issue under Wisconsin's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (the Act). The Act provides, in relevant part: (1) Scope.”

Reid v. Benz, 2001 WI 106 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 36× “The "necessary and proper" provision ( Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (8)) (1999-2000) of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act provided the means by which we awarded Donahue attorney fees.”

Putnam v. Time Warner Cable of Se. Wisconsin, Ltd. P'ship, 2002 WI 108 (Wis. 2002). · cites it 20× “To the extent that the circuit court premised its decision solely on the lack of present harm to the three named customers, it did not apply a proper standard of law.”

Elliott v. Donahue, 485 N.W.2d 403 (Wis. 1992). · cites it 20× “Third, and finally, Donahue argues that the principles of equity demand that insureds who successfully *320 defend coverage under an insurance policy recover attorney fees incurred in such defense.”

Dennis A. Teague v. Brad D. Schimel, 2017 WI 56 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 26× “See Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (1). ¶88 The declaratory judgment would also be negative in form and effect.”

Gorton v. Hostak, Henzl & Bichler, S.C., 577 N.W.2d 617 (Wis. 1998). · cites it 21× “18 belong to "the per *498 son suffering the pecuniary loss" or to the representative attorney? Second, do principles of equity apply to a Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (8) award of appellate counsel fees when the client suing a trial attorney has already been made more than whole for…”

Kathleen Papa v. DHS, 2020 WI 66 (Wis. 2020). · cites it 15× “Pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 806.04 (8) and 808.07(2)(a)3.”

Peggy Z. Coyne v. Scott Walker, 2016 WI 38 (Wis. 2016). · cites it 14× “Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (1). ¶28 The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Wis.”

Kremers-Urban Co. v. Am. Employers Ins. Co., 351 N.W.2d 156 (Wis. 1984). · cites it 11× “This action, instituted by Kremers-Union on February 25, 1981, seeks a declaratory judgment, pursuant to sec. 806.04, Stats., to construe the liability insurance policies issued by Commercial Union to Kremers-Urban from March 16, 1954, to March 16, 1976, declaring that…”

Fire Ins. Exch. v. Basten, 549 N.W.2d 690 (Wis. 1996). · cites it 31× “First, in seeking a determination of coverage under a liability insurance policy, may a non-party insurer bring a separate declaratory judgment action against its insured pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 806.04 1 (1993-94) 2 , rather than pursuing resolution of the coverage dispute…”

Putnam v. Time Warner Cable of Se. Wisconsin, Ltd. P'ship, 2001 WI App 196 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 30× “" Thus, a plaintiff seeking declaratory judgment need not actually suffer an injury before seeking relief under Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (2). Id. at ¶ 41 (citation omitted; emphasis added).”

Show all 282 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 806.04(1) — 25 cases

Milwaukee Police Ass'n v. City of Milwaukee, 2016 WI 47 (Wis. 2016).

State Ex Rel. Chiarkas v. Skow, 465 N.W.2d 625 (Wis. 1991).

Loy v. Bunderson, 320 N.W.2d 175 (Wis. 1982).

Klaus v. Vander Heyden, 316 N.W.2d 664 (Wis. 1982).

McEwen v. Pierce Cnty., 279 N.W.2d 469 (Wis. 1979).

— Wis. Stat. § 806.04(10) — 9 cases

Elliott v. Donahue, 485 N.W.2d 403 (Wis. 1992). “Third, and finally, Donahue argues that the principles of equity demand that insureds who successfully *320 defend coverage under an insurance policy recover attorney fees incurred in such defense.”

Kremers-Urban Co. v. Am. Employers Ins. Co., 351 N.W.2d 156 (Wis. 1984). “This action, instituted by Kremers-Union on February 25, 1981, seeks a declaratory judgment, pursuant to sec. 806.04, Stats., to construe the liability insurance policies issued by Commercial Union to Kremers-Urban from March 16, 1954, to March 16, 1976, declaring that…”

Benjamin v. Dohm, 525 N.W.2d 371 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).

Riccobono v. Seven Star, Inc., 2000 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).

Milwaukee Teacher's Educ. Ass'n v. Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Directors, 433 N.W.2d 669 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).

— Wis. Stat. § 806.04(11) — 53 cases

Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities, 2008 WI 9 (Wis. 2008). “Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (11): ¶¶ 138-143 Conclusion: ¶¶ 144-145 I.”

Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities, 2006 WI App 216 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).

Richards v. Young, 441 N.W.2d 742 (Wis. 1989).

North Side Bank v. Gentile, 385 N.W.2d 133 (Wis. 1986).

Harris v. Reivitz, 417 N.W.2d 50 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).

— Wis. Stat. § 806.04(12) — 6 cases

State Ex Rel. Chiarkas v. Skow, 465 N.W.2d 625 (Wis. 1991).

Klaus v. Vander Heyden, 316 N.W.2d 664 (Wis. 1982).

Putnam v. Time Warner Cable of Se. Wisconsin, Ltd. P'ship, 2001 WI App 196 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “" Thus, a plaintiff seeking declaratory judgment need not actually suffer an injury before seeking relief under Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (2). Id. at ¶ 41 (citation omitted; emphasis added).”

Zizzo v. Lakeside Steel & Mfg. Co., 2008 WI App 69 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).

Chileda Inst., Inc. v. City of La Crosse, 373 N.W.2d 43 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985).

— Wis. Stat. § 806.04(2) — 26 cases

State Ex Rel. Badke v. Vill. Bd. of the Vill. of Greendale, 494 N.W.2d 408 (Wis. 1993).

Town of Eagle v. Christensen, 529 N.W.2d 245 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).

Loy v. Bunderson, 320 N.W.2d 175 (Wis. 1982).

Kaiser v. City of Mauston, 299 N.W.2d 259 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980).

— Wis. Stat. § 806.04(3m) — 2 cases

Jb v. Af, 285 N.W.2d 880 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979).

In Re Paternity of Cavm, 2006 WI App 104 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).

— Wis. Stat. § 806.04(5) — 3 cases

State Ex Rel. Chiarkas v. Skow, 465 N.W.2d 625 (Wis. 1991).

Rebecca Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 79 (Wis. 2023).

— Wis. Stat. § 806.04(6) — 7 cases

Olson v. Town of Cottage Grove, 2008 WI 51 (Wis. 2008). “ANALYSIS ¶ 27 This case presents a complex standard of review issue and a relatively simple substantive issue under Wisconsin's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (the Act). The Act provides, in relevant part: (1) Scope.”

Aslanukov v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 426 F. Supp. 2d 888 (W.D. Wis. 2006).

Klaus v. Vander Heyden, 316 N.W.2d 664 (Wis. 1982).

Sipl v. Sentry Indem. Co., 431 N.W.2d 685 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).

Jumar K. Jones v. James Schwochert (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).

— Wis. Stat. § 806.04(7) — 3 cases

Alden Werch v. City of Berlin, 673 F.2d 192 (7th Cir. 1982).

O'BRIEN v. Dreyfus, 493 F. Supp. 476 (E.D. Wis. 1980).

Peter C. Tharp v. Vill. of Roberts (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wis. Stat. § 806.04(8) — 20 cases

Reid v. Benz, 2001 WI 106 (Wis. 2001). “The "necessary and proper" provision ( Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (8)) (1999-2000) of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act provided the means by which we awarded Donahue attorney fees.”

DeChant v. Monarch Life Ins., 547 N.W.2d 592 (Wis. 1996).

Dennis A. Teague v. Brad D. Schimel, 2017 WI 56 (Wis. 2017). “See Wis. Stat. § 806.04 (1). ¶88 The declaratory judgment would also be negative in form and effect.”

— Wis. Stat. § 806.04(9) — 2 cases

Am. Motorists Ins. v. R & S Meats, Inc., 526 N.W.2d 791 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).

Harris v. Aliera Healthcare Inc (E.D. Wis. 2021).

— Wis. Stat. § 806.04(a) — 1 case

Aslanukov v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 426 F. Supp. 2d 888 (W.D. Wis. 2006).

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.