Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 809.51 (2026)

Rule (Supervisory writ and original jurisdiction to issue prerogative writ)

✓ current as of July 2026

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

809.51809.51 Rule (Supervisory writ and original jurisdiction to issue prerogative writ).

809.51(1)(1) A person may request the court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction or its original jurisdiction to issue a prerogative writ over a court and the presiding judge, or other person or body, by filing a petition and supporting memorandum. The petition shall be served on each party and proposed respondent, and, if applicable, upon the originating court or tribunal, by traditional methods as provided in s. 809.80 (2). The petition and memorandum combined may not exceed 35 pages if a monospaced font or handwriting is used, or 8,000 words if a proportional serif font is used. The petitioner shall name as respondents the court and judge, or other person or body, and all other parties in the action or proceeding. The petition shall contain:

809.51(1)(a)(a) A statement of the issues presented by the controversy;

809.51(1)(b)(b) A statement of the facts necessary to an understanding of the issues;

809.51(1)(c)(c) The relief sought; and

809.51(1)(d)(d) The reasons why the court should take jurisdiction.

809.51(1m)(1m) The clerk of the court of appeals shall docket the petition upon receipt of the items referred to in sub. (1). The clerk shall assign a case number, create a notice that the petition has been docketed, transmit the notice of docketing to the clerk of circuit court if applicable, and send the notice of docketing to the parties by traditional methods.

809.51(2)(2) The court may deny the petition ex parte or may order the respondents to file a response with a supporting memorandum, if any, and may order oral argument on the merits of the petition. The response and memorandum combined may not exceed 35 pages if a monospaced font or handwriting is used, or 8,000 words if a proportional serif font is used. The respondents shall respond with supporting memorandum within 14 days after service of the order. A respondent may file a letter stating that the respondent does not intend to file a response, but the petition is not thereby admitted.

809.51(3)(3) The court, upon a consideration of the petition, responses, supporting memoranda and argument, may grant or deny the petition or order such additional proceedings as it considers appropriate. Costs and fees may be awarded against any party in a writ proceeding.

809.51(4)(4) A person filing a petition or response under this section shall file with the petition or response a certification setting forth the word count or page count of the document as provided in sub. (1) or (2).

809.51 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 83 Wis. 2d xiii (1978); Sup. Ct. Order, 104 Wis. 2d xi (1981); Sup. Ct. Order, 151 Wis. 2d xix (1981); Sup. Ct. Order, 164 Wis. 2d xxix (1991); Sup. Ct. Order, 171 Wis. 2d xxxv (1992); Sup. Ct. Order No. 93-20, 179 Wis. 2d xxv (1993); Sup. Ct. Order No. 00-02, 2001 WI 39, 242 Wis. 2d xxvii; Sup. Ct. Order No. 20-07, 2021 WI 37, 397 Wis. 2d xiii.

809.51 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1981: Sub. (1) is amended to reflect the procedure for issuance of a prerogative writ currently followed by the court of appeals and to alert attorneys to the correct procedure to be followed. Rule 809.51 governs the procedures for seeking a petition for supervisory writ or original jurisdiction prerogative writ in the court of appeals. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1982]

809.51 NoteJudicial Council Note, 2001: The time limit in sub. (2) was changed from 10 to 14 days. See the comment to s. 808.07. [Re Order No. 00-02 effective July 1, 2001]

809.51 NoteNOTE: Sup. Ct. Order No. 20-07 states that “the Comments to the statutes created pursuant to this order are not adopted, but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the rule.”

809.51 NoteComment, 2021: Unlike an appeal from a circuit court proceeding, writs and original actions do not necessarily arise from a pending case through which the parties can be served electronically. A proceeding under this section is a new action that must be served on the respondents by traditional methods.

809.51 AnnotationThe court of appeals abused its discretion by ordering oral argument one day after the petition for a writ was filed and served. State ex rel. Breier v. Circuit Court, 91 Wis. 2d 833, 284 N.W.2d 102 (1979).

809.51 AnnotationThe court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain original actions unrelated to its supervisory or appellate authority over circuit courts. State ex rel. Swan v. Elections Board, 133 Wis. 2d 87, 394 N.W.2d 732 (1986).

809.51 AnnotationThe term “supervisory writ” is both: 1) the general term used in petitioning the court of appeals to exercise its constitutional supervisory authority and in petitioning the supreme court to exercise its constitutional superintending authority; and 2) a new writ the supreme court devised independent of the traditional common law writs. State ex rel. CityDeck Landing LLC v. Circuit Court, 2019 WI 15, 385 Wis. 2d 516, 922 N.W.2d 832, 18-0291.

809.51 AnnotationNeither this section nor equity imposes a prompt and speedy pleading requirement in the filing of a petition for habeas corpus. The equitable defense of laches exists to address any prejudice to the state caused by a petitioner’s unreasonable delay in the filing of a habeas petition. A habeas petition may not be denied ex parte solely because the petitioner failed to assert and demonstrate the petitioner sought relief in a prompt and speedy manner. State ex rel. Lopez-Quintero v. Dittmann, 2019 WI 58, 387 Wis. 2d 50, 928 N.W.2d 480, 18-0203.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Ezequiel Lopez-Quintero v. Michael A. Dittmann, 928 N.W.2d 480 (Wis. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ezequiel Lopez-Quintero v. Michael A. Dittmann, 928 N.W.2d 480 (Wis. 2019). · cites it 31× “2d 110 (discussing invocation of the court's equitable powers to issue a writ pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.51 , a statutory provision that also applies to writs of habeas corpus).”

State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 8× “" Judge Finn addressed the merits of the Kalals' motion, however, and reiterated his finding that the district attorney's conduct from the date of Tjader's initial complaint to the date of the hearing, combined with Deputy District Attorney Hanson's statements at the hearing,…”

State Ex Rel. Unnamed Person No.1 v. State, 2003 WI 30 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 16× “03 (2), and in Wis. Stat. § 809.51 (1) including `other person or body' is sufficiently broad in scope to permit the court of appeals to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the actions of a judge presiding over a John Doe proceeding.”

State Ex Rel. Reimann v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 571 N.W.2d 385 (Wis. 1997). · cites it 6× “Reimann then petitioned the court of appeals for a supervisory writ under Wis. Stat. § 809.51 (1) 3 compelling Judge Torphy to conduct further proceedings on the John Doe petition.”

State Ex Rel. Coleman v. McCaughtry, 2006 WI 49 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 4× “Wis. Stat. § 809.51 (1); State ex rel. Smalley v.”

State Ex Rel. Two Unnamed v. Peterson, 2015 WI 85 (Wis. 2015). · cites it 4× “, ¶41; see also Wis. Stat. § 809.51 (1). ¶80 It is well settled that "[a] writ of supervision is not a substitute for an appeal.”

State v. O'NEILL, 2003 WI App 73 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 7× “We concluded that the circuit court should have this opportunity, observing that the circuit court was a respondent to the petition for a supervisory writ under Wis. Stat. § 809.51 (2). 1 The *540 circuit court and Judge Johnston as presiding judge, through appointed counsel,…”

State v. Webb, 467 N.W.2d 108 (Wis. 1991). · cites it 4× “Section 809.51. [10] In conclusion, we hold that no relief is available to the defendant in the case at bar.”

Madison Metro. Sch. Dist. v. Circuit Court, 2011 WI 72 (Wis. 2011). · cites it 3× “Wis. Stat. § 809.51 . A supervisory writ is an extraordinary remedy to prevent a court from refusing to perform, or from violating, its plain duty.”

Rohl v. State, 279 N.W.2d 731 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “It is a motion for bail pending a new trial. Lastly, even assuming we do not have the authority to grant bail pending a new trial under secs.”

McEwen v. Pierce Cnty., 279 N.W.2d 469 (Wis. 1979). “153 ; sec. 809.51, Stats.; Martineau & Malmgren, Wisconsin Appellate Practice ch.”

State of Wisconsin Ex Rel. Individual Subpoenaed to Appear at Waukesha Cnty. John Doe Case No. 2003 Jd 001 v. Mac Davis, 2005 WI 70 (Wis. 2005). “*439 § 809.51. 5 The purpose of the writ is to prohibit Judge Davis from requiring the Witness's counsel to take the secrecy oath.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 809.51(1) — 3 cases

Ezequiel Lopez-Quintero v. Michael A. Dittmann, 928 N.W.2d 480 (Wis. 2019). “2d 110 (discussing invocation of the court's equitable powers to issue a writ pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.51 , a statutory provision that also applies to writs of habeas corpus).”

State Ex Rel. James L.J. v. Circuit Court for Walworth Cnty., 546 N.W.2d 460 (Wis. 1996).

Ezequiel Lopez-Quintero v. Michael A. Dittmann (Wis. 2019).

— Wis. Stat. § 809.51(1)(b) — 2 cases

Ezequiel Lopez-Quintero v. Michael A. Dittmann (Wis. 2019).

— Wis. Stat. § 809.51(2) — 4 cases

State Ex Rel. Unnamed Person No.1 v. State, 2003 WI 30 (Wis. 2003). “03 (2), and in Wis. Stat. § 809.51 (1) including `other person or body' is sufficiently broad in scope to permit the court of appeals to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the actions of a judge presiding over a John Doe proceeding.”

State v. O'NEILL, 2003 WI App 73 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “We concluded that the circuit court should have this opportunity, observing that the circuit court was a respondent to the petition for a supervisory writ under Wis. Stat. § 809.51 (2). 1 The *540 circuit court and Judge Johnston as presiding judge, through appointed counsel,…”

Ezequiel Lopez-Quintero v. Michael A. Dittmann (Wis. 2019).

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.