Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 809 — RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 809.26 (2026)

Rule (Remittitur)

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
809.26809.26 Rule (Remittitur).
809.26(1)(1) The clerk of the court of appeals shall transmit to the circuit court the judgment and decision or order of the court and the record in the case filed pursuant to s. 809.15 31 days after the filing of the decision or order of the court, or as soon thereafter as practicable. If a petition for review is filed pursuant to s. 809.62, the transmittal is stayed until the supreme court rules on the petition. If a motion for reconsideration is filed under s. 809.24, the transmittal is stayed until the court files an order denying the motion, or files an amended decision or order, and the subsequent expiration of any period for filing a petition for review.
809.26(2)(2) If the supreme court grants a petition for review of a decision of the court of appeals, the supreme court upon filing its decision shall transmit to the trial court the judgment and opinion of the supreme court and the complete record in the case unless the case is remanded to the court of appeals with specific instructions.
809.26 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 83 Wis. 2d xiii (1978); Sup. Ct. Order, 92 Wis. 2d xiii (1979); 1981 c. 390 s. 252; Sup. Ct. Order No. 00-02, 2001 WI 39, 242 Wis. 2d xxvii; Sup. Ct. Order No. 02-01, 2002 WI 120, 255 Wis. 2d xiii.
809.26 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1978: Former s. 817.35 is embodied in this section except that the time for issuance of the remittitur is reduced from 60 to 31 days. [Re Order effective July 1, 1978]
809.26 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This section is amended by creating a sub. (2) that specifically authorizes the Supreme Court after filing its decision in the review of a decision from the Court of Appeals to remit directly to the trial court the complete record of the case without the necessity of returning the case to the Court of Appeals for remittitur to the trial court. The only exception to this new procedure will occur when the Supreme Court remands a case to the Court of Appeals with some specific instructions that the Court of Appeals is required to follow. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1980].
809.26 NoteJudicial Council Note, 2002: Subsection (1) is amended to permit the clerk of courts some flexibility in the 31-day remittitur deadline to accommodate workload fluctuation. By Supreme Court Order 00-02, 2001 WI 39, “within” was added immediately preceding “31 days.” The Judicial Council had not intended to suggest changing the substance of existing time parameters for remittitur, when it petitioned for that amendment, but merely proposed the additional word for ease of reading. Since that amendment, it has been argued that the addition of “within” permits remittitur prior to the expiration of the 31-day period. However, the 31-day period coincides with the time limit for filing a petition for review. Absent stipulation among the parties that no petition for review will be filed, remittitur should not occur before the expiration of the petition for review deadline. [Re Order No. 02-01 effective January 1, 2003]
809.26 AnnotationAn appellate court’s jurisdiction ceases upon remittitur in the absence of inadvertence, fraud, or void judgment. The inadvertence exception applies to the act of remitting the record itself, which must be inadvertently done. State ex rel. Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, 225 Wis. 2d 446, 593 N.W.2d 48 (1999), 98-1534.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 2007 WI 97 (Wis. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 2007 WI 97 (Wis. 2007). · cites it 4× “(Rule) § 809.26 (relating to remittitur). The supreme court need not use the word "remand" in the mandate line for the case to be returned (that is, remitted) to the circuit court and for the circuit court to take further action.”
State Ex Rel. Fuentes v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 593 N.W.2d 48 (Wis. 1999). · cites it 4× “Wis. Stat. § 809.26 (1) (1997-98). 1 However, by the time Ruth received such notification, the 30-day period to petition this court for review had expired and remittitur had occurred.”
John H. Balsewicz v. Phillip A. Kingston, Warden, 425 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “On direct appeal, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed Bal-sewicz’s conviction and issued a Remittitur to the Circuit Court on May 24, 1994.”
United Concrete & Constr., Inc. v. Red-D-Mix Concrete, Inc., 2013 WI 72 (Wis. 2013). · cites it 2× “Quite to the contrary, we specifically informed Red-D-Mix that it was not to "raise or argue issues not set forth in the petition for review," and cited to § 809.26(6). ¶17 Red-D-Mix now asks us to forgive the omission because the "member of the public" issue "is an essential…”
Rohl v. State, 279 N.W.2d 731 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “While the State conceded at oral argument that the trial court has no jurisdiction to act until it receives the remittitur, it argued that thiry-one days was not an unreasonable time for the defendant to wait in prison until the trial court regains jurisdiction.”
Austin v. Novak (E.D. Wis. 2021). · cites it 2× “2005) (citing Wis. Stat. §809.26 ; State ex rel. Fuentes v.”
Cooper v. Fuchs (E.D. Wis. 2022). · cites it 2× “2005) (citing Wis. Stat. §809.26 ; State ex rel. Fuentes v.”
Johnson v. Kemper (E.D. Wis. 2022). · cites it 2× “2005) (citing Wis. Stat. §809.26 ; State ex rel. Fuentes v.”
Dawson v. Buesgen (E.D. Wis. 2022). · cites it 2× “2005) (citing Wis. Stat. §809.26 ; State ex rel. Fuentes v.”
Harrison v. Cromwell (E.D. Wis. 2022). · cites it 2× “2005) (citing Wis. Stat. §809.26 ; State ex rel. Fuentes v.”
Harrison v. Cromwell (E.D. Wis. 2022). · cites it 2× “2005) (citing Wis. Stat. §809.26 ; State ex rel. Fuentes v.”
Mulrey v. Wisconsin Off. of Lawyer Reg. (E.D. Wis. 2024). · cites it 2× “13, and proceedings are held where the referee “has the powers of a judge trying a civil action and shall conduct the hearing as the trial of a civil action to the court. The rules of civil procedure and evidence shall be followed.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 809.26(6) — 1 case
United Concrete & Constr., Inc. v. Red-D-Mix Concrete, Inc., 2013 WI 72 (Wis. 2013). “Quite to the contrary, we specifically informed Red-D-Mix that it was not to "raise or argue issues not set forth in the petition for review," and cited to § 809.26(6). ¶17 Red-D-Mix now asks us to forgive the omission because the "member of the public" issue "is an essential…”
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.