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

Wis. Stat. § 809.64 (2026)

Rule (Reconsideration)

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
809.64809.64 Rule (Reconsideration). A party may seek reconsideration of the judgment or opinion of the supreme court by filing a motion under s. 809.14 for reconsideration within 20 days after the date of the decision of the supreme court.
809.64 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 83 Wis. 2d xiii (1978); 1981 c. 390 s. 252; Sup. Ct. Order No. 00-02, 2001 WI 39, 242 Wis. 2d xxvii.
809.64 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1978: Rule 809.64 replaces former Rules 251.65, 251.67 to 251.69, which provided for motions for rehearing. The necessity for the filing of briefs on a motion for reconsideration as required by former Rule 251.67 is eliminated. The matter will be considered on the motion and supporting and opposing memoranda as with any other motion. The term “reconsideration” is used rather than rehearing because in a case decided without oral argument there has been no initial hearing. [Re Order effective July 1, 1978]
809.64 NoteJudicial Council Note, 2001: This section has been changed to specify that the time limit for filing motions for reconsideration of supreme court opinions is calculated from the date, not the filing, of the decision. [Re Order No. 00-02 effective July 1, 2001]
809.64 AnnotationA supreme court order denying a petition to review a court of appeals decision was neither a judgment nor an opinion. Archdiocese of Milwaukee v. City of Milwaukee, 91 Wis. 2d 625, 284 N.W.2d 29 (1979).
809.64 AnnotationA motion mailed within the 20-day period, but received after the period expired, was not timely and did not merit exemption from the time requirement. Lobermeier v. General Telephone Co. of Wisconsin, 120 Wis. 2d 419, 355 N.W.2d 531 (1984).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, 2006 WI 107 (Wis. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, 2006 WI 107 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 8× “The decisions of this court are final if not set aside on a motion for reconsideration in the case in which the ruling was issued, Wis. Stat. § 809.64 (2003-04), [1] or overturned by a federal court on a federal question, see State v.”
Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 2007 WI 97 (Wis. 2007). · cites it 4× “" [9] The majority opinion supports its conclusion that this court affirmed the judgment or final order of the circuit court by snipping and pasting various phrases in Tietsworth II that describe the order of the circuit court as dismissing the complaint in its entirety, and…”
Metro. Ventures, LLC v. GEA Assocs., 2007 WI 23 (Wis. 2007). · cites it 4× “Metropolitan Ventures, LLC (Metropolitan), the plaintiff-appellant, moves the court to clarify its decision in this case, a request we construe to be a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.64 . ¶ 2 We deny the motions for reconsideration of GEA and…”
State v. Johnson, 449 N.W.2d 845 (Wis. 1990). “Subsequent to our initial review, Johnson filed a timely motion to this court pursuant to sec. 809.64, Stats., for reconsideration of the decision on the grounds the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel guaranteed him by the sixth amendment.”
Rebecca Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 70 (Wis. 2023). · cites it 2× “, concurring in part/dissenting in part) ("The decisions of this court are final if not set aside on a motion for reconsideration in the case in which the ruling was issued, Wis. Stat. § 809.64 (2003–04), or overturned by a federal court on a federal question, see State v.”
City of Cedarburg v. Ries B. Hansen, 2020 WI 45 (Wis. 2020). · cites it 2× “See Wis. Stat. § 809.64 (2019-20). The City contends the court overlooked State v.”
Rebecca Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 79 (Wis. 2023). · cites it 2× “(Rule) § 809.64.  The proponents of this case and the majority fail to meaningfully address stare decisis.”
City of Cedarburg v. Ries B. Hansen, 2020 WI 45 (Wis. 2020). · cites it 2× “See Wis. Stat. § 809.64 (2019-20). The City contends the court overlooked State v.”
Rebecca Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2023 WI 79 (Wis. 2023). · cites it 2× “(Rule) § 809.64.  The proponents of this case and the majority fail to meaningfully address stare decisis.”
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.