Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 808.07 (2026)
Relief pending appeal
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
808.07(1)(1) Effect of appeal. An appeal does not stay the execution or enforcement of the judgment or order appealed from except as provided in this section or as otherwise expressly provided by law.
808.07(2)(a)3.3. Make any order appropriate to preserve the existing state of affairs or the effectiveness of the judgment subsequently to be entered.
808.07(2)(am)(am) During the pendency of an appeal, the trial court may hear and determine a motion filed under s. 806.07.
808.07(2)(b)(b) Except as provided in s. 655.27 (5) (a) 3., relief under this subsection may be conditioned upon the filing of an undertaking in the trial court.
808.07(2m)(a)(a) During the pendency of an appeal of a judgment in any civil action, the court shall set the amount of the undertaking to be furnished by all appellants collectively in order to stay the execution of the judgment during appellate review, but the undertaking shall not exceed $100,000,000.
808.07(2m)(b)(b) Notwithstanding par. (a), if an appellee proves by a preponderance of the evidence that an appellant is dissipating assets outside the ordinary course of business to avoid payment of a judgment, a court may enter any order necessary to protect the appellee and may require the appellant to post a bond in an amount not to exceed the amount of the judgment.
808.07(3)(3) Undertaking for costs. An undertaking for costs is not required unless specifically required by statute, or, except as provided in s. 655.27 (5) (a) 3., by the trial court acting in its discretion.
808.07(4)(4) Proceedings against a surety. A surety on an undertaking is subject to the jurisdiction of the trial court and irrevocably appoints the clerk of that court as the surety’s agent for service of any papers affecting his or her liability on the undertaking. A person may seek to enforce the surety’s liability by filing a motion in the action or proceeding in the trial court in which the undertaking was filed.
808.07(5)(5) Public officials. A person or agency suing or being sued in an official public capacity is not required to execute an undertaking as a condition for relief under this section unless, except as provided in s. 655.27 (5) (a) 3., required by the court in its discretion.
808.07(6)(6) Sureties on undertakings. A surety shall file with the undertaking an affidavit that the surety has a net worth in property within this state not exempt from execution which exceeds the amount of the undertaking, except as provided in s. 632.17 (2). The respondent may by motion object to the sufficiency of a surety within 14 days after service of a copy of the undertaking.
808.07 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 187; 1979 c. 32; 1979 c. 110 s. 60 (9); 1983 a. 158, 219; Sup. Ct. Order, 130 Wis. 2d xix (1986); 1985 a. 332; Sup. Ct. Order No. 00-02, 2001 WI 39, 242 Wis. 2d xxvii; 2003 a. 105.
Effective date noteJudicial Council Note, 1986: Sub. (2) (am) carries forward the authority of trial courts to hear and determine motions for relief from judgment during the pendency of an appeal. Authority of the appellate court to hear and determine such motions under prior sub. (2) (a) 4. has been repealed. [Re Order eff. 7-1-86]
808.07 NoteJudicial Council Note, 2001: Sub. (6) is the first of fifteen statutes scattered throughout the rules in which a 10-day deadline is being changed to a 14-day deadline. Also, 7-day deadlines are being changed to 11-day deadlines. Many of the current deadlines in ch. 809 are either 7 or 10 days and are affected by s. 801.15 (1) (b), which excludes “Saturdays, Sundays and holidays” from time periods “less than 11 days.” Additionally, many time periods in ch. 809 run from the service of a document, and under s. 801.15 (5) (a), when a document is served by mail, 3 days are added to the prescribed period. The interplay of s. 801.15 and ch. 809 causes many of the time periods in ch. 809 to be substantially longer than the number of days specified in the Rules. The varying time periods have made calculation of the court’s deadlines difficult.
808.07 NoteThe proposed amendment of all of the 7-day or 10-day deadlines to 11 and 14 days, respectively, will remove the impact of s. 801.15 (1) (b) on the Rules of Appellate Procedure. However, there will be little adverse impact on the time actually given to parties. The proposed change will greatly facilitate the court’s calculation of deadlines. If circumstances demand a different time period, the court may set an appropriate deadline under s. 809.82 (2) (a). [Re Order No. 00-02 effective July 1, 2001]
808.07 AnnotationA postjudgment order of the circuit court denying a motion under sub. (2) (a) 4. [now sub. (2) (am)] is not reviewable on an appeal from the judgment. Chicago & North Western Railroad v. LIRC, 91 Wis. 2d 462, 283 N.W.2d 603 (Ct. App. 1979).
808.07 AnnotationUnder sub. (1) and s. 808.075 (1), a circuit court has authority to confirm a sheriff’s sale even though an appeal of the judgment of foreclosure and sale is pending. Community National Bank v. O’Neill, 157 Wis. 2d 244, 458 N.W.2d 385 (Ct. App. 1990).
808.07 AnnotationA stay pending appeal is appropriate when the moving party: 1) makes a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the appeal; 2) shows that unless the stay is granted it will suffer irreparable harm; 3) shows that there will be no substantial harm to the other parties; and 4) shows that there will be no harm to the public interest. State v. Gudenschwager, 191 Wis. 2d 431, 529 N.W.2d 225 (1995).
808.07 AnnotationThe Gudenschwager, 191 Wis. 2d 431 (1995), factors do not provide adequate guidance for granting a stay pending appeal when the judgment sought to be stayed is solely a money judgment. The court must consider: 1) the likelihood of success on appeal; 2) the need to ensure collectibility of the judgment if the appeal is unsuccessful; 3) whether the appellant, if successful, will be able to recover; and 4) the harm to the respondent if the judgment is not paid until the completion of an unsuccessful appeal. Scullion v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co., 2000 WI App 120, 237 Wis. 2d 498, 614 N.W.2d 565, 98-3221.
808.07 AnnotationEven if a statutory lis pendens under s. 840.10 is dissolved, common law lis pendens applies and a purchaser who is a party to the relevant litigation takes the property subject to the outcome of the litigation, including appeals. This section does not affect that result. Gaugert v. Duve, 2001 WI 83, 244 Wis. 2d 691, 628 N.W.2d 861, 98-3004.
808.07 AnnotationIn some cases, executions may be stayed, tolling interest, and in other cases, a court may decline such a request for stay. There is no substantial conflict in these differing results. Estate of Matteson v. Matteson, 2008 WI 48, 309 Wis. 2d 311, 749 N.W.2d 557, 05-2607.
808.07 AnnotationIn determining whether to grant relief pending appeal, the court of appeals exercises its discretion. The court of appeals should explain its discretionary decision-making to ensure the soundness of that decision-making and to facilitate judicial review. In this case, the court of appeals erroneously exercised its discretion when the court denied the defendant’s motion for relief pending appeal without explaining the reasoning for the discretionary denial decision. State v. Scott, 2018 WI 74, 382 Wis. 2d 476, 914 N.W.2d 141, 16-2017.
808.07 AnnotationInvoluntary medication orders are subject to an automatic stay pending appeal. On a motion to lift an automatic stay, the state must: 1) make a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal; 2) show that the defendant will not suffer irreparable harm if the stay is lifted; 3) show that no substantial harm will come to other interested parties if the stay is lifted; and 4) show that lifting the stay will do no harm to the public interest. State v. Scott, 2018 WI 74, 382 Wis. 2d 476, 914 N.W.2d 141, 16-2017.
808.07 AnnotationWhen reviewing the likelihood of success on appeal in conducting a stay analysis, a circuit court must consider the standard of review, along with the possibility that appellate courts may reasonably disagree with its legal analysis. The probability of success that must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the amount of irreparable injury the movant will suffer absent the stay. Thus, the greater the potential injury, the less a movant must prove in terms of success on appeal. Waity v. Lemahieu, 2022 WI 6, 400 Wis. 2d 356, 969 N.W.2d 263, 21-0802.
808.07 AnnotationIn conducting a stay analysis, courts consider whether the movant shows that no substantial harm will come to other interested parties. Courts consider the period of time that the case is on appeal, not any harm that could occur in the future. Courts must consider the extent of harm the non-movant will experience if a stay is entered, but the non-movant is ultimately successful in having the injunction affirmed and reinstated. Thus, the stay analysis is not a mere repetition of any harm analysis conducted by the circuit court when it originally issued an order granting relief, which may consider generally all future harms to the non-movant. Waity v. Lemahieu, 2022 WI 6, 400 Wis. 2d 356, 969 N.W.2d 263, 21-0802.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: John Doe 1 v. Madison Metro Sch. Dist., 2022 WI 65 (Wis. 2022).
John Doe 1 v. Madison Metro Sch. Dist., 2022 WI 65 (Wis. 2022). “They moved for injunctive relief under Wis. Stat. § 808.07 (2)(a) and cited Wis.”
Gaugert v. Duve, 2001 WI 83 (Wis. 2001). “Hansen contends that pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 808.07 (1) 4 the Gaugerts were required to obtain a stay pending appeal in order to preserve the status quo after the circuit court entered judgment.”
Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott Walker, 2013 WI 91 (Wis. 2013). “" Wis. Stat. § 808.075 (3). ¶47 The circuit court retains broad powers under subsection (1).”
Est. of Matteson v. Matteson, 2008 WI 48 (Wis. 2008). “On September 20, 2005, Robert moved to stay execution of the judgment, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 808.07 (2)(a). 10 The motion requested that the amount of the judgment along with "any accumulated interest to the date of deposit" be deposited with the clerk of *327 court for Fond…”
State v. Joseph G. Green, 2021 WI App 18 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 808.07 and WIS. STAT. RULE 809.12. Section 808.”
Town of Delafield v. Winkelman, 2004 WI 17 (Wis. 2004). “While pursuing its appeal, the City did not seek a stay under Wis. Stat. § 808.07 of either the writ of mandamus or the judgment.”
Scullion v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co., 2000 WI App 120 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “3 We attempted to find guidance in cases from the courts of other states, but the cases we found have, in general, not been useful because of the difference in wording between Wis. Stat. § 808.07 and the statutes of the other states.”
Chase Lumber & Fuel Co., Inc. v. Chase, 596 N.W.2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Chase misreads § 808.07, Stats., by overlooking subsection (1) of the statute.”
Romero v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 2016 WI App 59 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “2 million bond payable to West Bend pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 808.07 (2m)(a) (2013-14). 3 Addison appeals the underlying coverage determination, the award of fees and costs, and the propriety of the required appeal bond.”
Weber v. White, 2004 WI 63 (Wis. 2004). “That authority is based on Wis. Stat. § 808.07 (2). 6 *135 ¶ 35. There are four factors for the circuit court to consider when asked to grant a stay of a money judgment pending appeal.”
State v. Andre L. Scott, 914 N.W.2d 141 (Wis. 2018). “22 See Wis. Stat. § 808.07 , § (Rule) 809.12 (enabling the court of appeals to grant relief from a circuit court order pending appeal).”
Kathleen Papa v. DHS, 2020 WI 66 (Wis. 2020). “§§ 808.07 (2)(a)3. and 806.04(8). Neither expressly authorizes a court to order costs and attorney fees.”
— Wis. Stat. § 808.07(1) — 9 cases
Gaugert v. Duve, 2001 WI 83 (Wis. 2001). “Hansen contends that pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 808.07 (1) 4 the Gaugerts were required to obtain a stay pending appeal in order to preserve the status quo after the circuit court entered judgment.”
Chase Lumber & Fuel Co., Inc. v. Chase, 596 N.W.2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Chase misreads § 808.07, Stats., by overlooking subsection (1) of the statute.”
Timothy Zignego v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2020 WI App 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
In Re Marriage of Hengel v. Hengel, 355 N.W.2d 846 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984).
Clarkin v. Dingeldein, 320 N.W.2d 40 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982).
— Wis. Stat. § 808.07(2) — 14 cases
Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott Walker, 2013 WI 91 (Wis. 2013). “" Wis. Stat. § 808.075 (3). ¶47 The circuit court retains broad powers under subsection (1).”
Wengerd v. Rinehart, 338 N.W.2d 861 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983).
Gaugert v. Duve, 2001 WI 83 (Wis. 2001). “Hansen contends that pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 808.07 (1) 4 the Gaugerts were required to obtain a stay pending appeal in order to preserve the status quo after the circuit court entered judgment.”
Metro. Greyhound Mgmt. Corp. v. Wisconsin Racing Bd., 460 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).
Weber v. White, 2004 WI 63 (Wis. 2004). “That authority is based on Wis. Stat. § 808.07 (2). 6 *135 ¶ 35. There are four factors for the circuit court to consider when asked to grant a stay of a money judgment pending appeal.”
— Wis. Stat. § 808.07(2)(a) — 7 cases
John Doe 1 v. Madison Metro Sch. Dist., 2022 WI 65 (Wis. 2022). “They moved for injunctive relief under Wis. Stat. § 808.07 (2)(a) and cited Wis.”
Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott Walker, 2013 WI 91 (Wis. 2013). “" Wis. Stat. § 808.075 (3). ¶47 The circuit court retains broad powers under subsection (1).”
Est. of Matteson v. Matteson, 2008 WI 48 (Wis. 2008). “On September 20, 2005, Robert moved to stay execution of the judgment, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 808.07 (2)(a). 10 The motion requested that the amount of the judgment along with "any accumulated interest to the date of deposit" be deposited with the clerk of *327 court for Fond…”
Kathleen Papa v. DHS, 2020 WI 66 (Wis. 2020). “§§ 808.07 (2)(a)3. and 806.04(8). Neither expressly authorizes a court to order costs and attorney fees.”
Mgmt. Comput. Servs., Inc. v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., 592 N.W.2d 279 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wis. Stat. § 808.07(2)(a)(3) — 1 case
Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott Walker, 2013 WI 91 (Wis. 2013). “" Wis. Stat. § 808.075 (3). ¶47 The circuit court retains broad powers under subsection (1).”
— Wis. Stat. § 808.07(2)(b) — 1 case
Scullion v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co., 2000 WI App 120 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “3 We attempted to find guidance in cases from the courts of other states, but the cases we found have, in general, not been useful because of the difference in wording between Wis. Stat. § 808.07 and the statutes of the other states.”
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.