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

Wis. Stat. § 806.23 (2026)

Action on judgment, when brought

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
806.23806.23 Action on judgment, when brought. No action shall be brought upon a judgment rendered in any court of this state between the same parties, without leave of the court, for good cause shown, on notice to the adverse party.
806.23 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 738 (1975).
806.23 AnnotationThe trial court’s denial of a petition to sue on a 12-year-old judgment was an abuse of discretion. Andersen v. Kojo, 110 Wis. 2d 22, 327 N.W.2d 195 (Ct. App. 1982).
806.23 AnnotationNothing in this section, or case law interpreting it, prevents a party who has been unable to enforce a judgment for specific performance by a court-imposed deadline from moving the court for a new order with a new deadline. Chase Lumber & Fuel Co. v. Chase, 228 Wis. 2d 179, 596 N.W.2d 840 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-0532.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Chase Lumber & Fuel Co., Inc. v. Chase, 596 N.W.2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chase Lumber & Fuel Co., Inc. v. Chase, 596 N.W.2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 7× “Under Chase's interpretation of Ingraham and § 806.23, Stats., if a defendant refused to comply with a judgment for specific performance until the court's deadline passes, then the plaintiff would have to start a new action to enforce the judgment.”
Andersen v. Kojo, 327 N.W.2d 195 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6× “On June 15, 1981, plaintiff petitioned for leave to sue on the judgment, pursuant to sec. 806.23, Stats. 1 The trial court determined that plaintiff had not shown “good cause” under sec.”
Donald Edward Carroll v. Roland F. Sarko (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 23× “§ 806.23 to bring the action on the 1999 judgment because Carroll did not serve the petition on Sarko in the same manner that a summons is served under WIS.”
Donald E. Carroll v. Sarko Eng'g Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 23× “2 Carroll appeals, appearing pro se and arguing that the leave requirement in § 806.23 does not apply to judgment assignees and that controlling case law to the contrary should be “overturned.”
Meier v. Purdun, 288 N.W.2d 839 (Wis. 1980). “The facts leading up to the present case are set forth in this court’s earlier opinion substantially as follows.”
Veronika McCarthy v. Briane F. Pagel, Jr (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 9× “§ 806.23 (2021-22).1 The Dane County Circuit Court granted Krekeler’s motion, and Gaura argues in this appeal that the circuit court erred in doing so.”
Kriete Truck Ctr. Madison, Inc. v. William G. Wickman (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “§ 806.23 (2023-24),2 naming “William G. Wickman” as the sole defendant.”
Ronald D. Fischer v. Amy E. Stimac (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 806.23. The plaintiffs’ petition did not make any mention of Clark’s bankruptcy.”
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.