Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 809.70 (2026)
Rule (Original action)
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
809.70(1)(1) A person may request the supreme court to take jurisdiction of an original action by filing a petition which may be supported by a memorandum. The petition shall be served on each party and proposed respondent by traditional methods as provided in s. 809.80 (2). The petition must contain all of the following:
809.70(1m)(1m) The clerk of court 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, and send the notice to the parties by traditional methods.
809.70(2)(2) The court may deny the petition or may order the respondent to respond and may order oral argument on the question of taking original jurisdiction. The respondent shall file a response, which may be supported by a memorandum, within 14 days after the service of the order.
809.70(3)(3) The court, upon a consideration of the petition, response, supporting memoranda and argument, may grant or deny the petition. The court, if it grants the petition, may establish a schedule for pleading, briefing and submission with or without oral argument.
809.70 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 83 Wis. 2d xiii (1978); 1995 a. 225; 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.
809.70 NoteJudicial Council Note, 2001: The time limit in sub. (2) was changed from 10 to 14 days. Please see the comment to s. 808.07. [Re Order No. 00-02 effective July 1, 2001]
809.70 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.”
809.70 NoteComment, 2021: A proceeding under this section is a new action that must be served on the respondents by the initiating parties using traditional methods.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Citizens Util. Bd. v. Klauser, 534 N.W.2d 608 (Wis. 1995).
Citizens Util. Bd. v. Klauser, 534 N.W.2d 608 (Wis. 1995). “3(2) of the Wisconsin Constitution and sec. 809.70, Stats. 1 In this declaratory judgment action initiated pursuant to sec.”
Norquist v. Zeuske, 564 N.W.2d 748 (Wis. 1997). “VII, § 3(2) and Wis. Stat. § 809.70 (1) (1995-96). 1 We accepted the petition to commence an original action on October 21, 1996.”
Joni B. v. State, 549 N.W.2d 411 (Wis. 1996). “3 On October 9,1995, the Petitioners filed two separate petitions challenging the constitutionality of § 2442v and requesting that this court take original action pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.70 and Art. VII, sec. 3(2) of the Wisconsin Constitution.”
Latonya Cannon v. Armstrong Containers Inc., 92 F.4th 688 (7th Cir. 2024). “Not for lack of opportunity, either—a year after our decision in Burton II, the plaintiffs asked the Wiscon- sin Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of an original action addressing these same questions, and the state court declined review.”
Gard v. Wisconsin State Elections Bd., 456 N.W.2d 809 (Wis. 1990). “This is an original action brought by the petitioners pursuant to sec. 809.70, Stats., for a declaratory judgment seeking a declaration of the constitutionality of sec.”
Forest Cnty. Potawatomi Cmty. v. Doyle, 803 F. Supp. 1526 (W.D. Wis. 1992). “VII, § 3(2) and Wis.Stat. § 809.70. They sought a declaration that Wis.”
City of Hartford v. Kirley, 433 N.W.2d 45 (Wis. 1992). “This is an original action, brought pursuant to sec. 809.70, Stats. 1989-90, by the City of Hartford, Wisconsin, against Dean T.”
Maniya Allen v. Armstrong Containers Inc. (7th Cir. 2024). “Not for lack of opportunity, either—a year after our decision in Burton II, the plaintiffs asked the Wiscon- sin Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of an original action addressing these same questions, and the state court declined review.”
Maniya Allen v. Armstrong Containers Inc. (7th Cir. 2024). “Not for lack of opportunity, either—a year after our decision in Burton II, the plaintiffs asked the Wiscon- sin Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of an original action addressing these same questions, and the state court declined review.”
Latonya Cannon v. Armstrong Containers Inc. (7th Cir. 2024). “Not for lack of opportunity, either—a year after our decision in Burton II, the plaintiffs asked the Wiscon- sin Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of an original action addressing these same questions, and the state court declined review.”
Ernest Gibson v. Armstrong Containers, Inc. (7th Cir. 2024). “Not for lack of opportunity, either—a year after our decision in Burton II, the plaintiffs asked the Wiscon- sin Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of an original action addressing these same questions, and the state court declined review.”
Ernest Gibson v. Armstrong Containers Inc. (7th Cir. 2024). “Not for lack of opportunity, either—a year after our decision in Burton II, the plaintiffs asked the Wiscon- sin Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of an original action addressing these same questions, and the state court declined review.”
— Wis. Stat. § 809.70(1) — 1 case
Citizens Util. Bd. v. Klauser, 534 N.W.2d 608 (Wis. 1995). “3(2) of the Wisconsin Constitution and sec. 809.70, Stats. 1 In this declaratory judgment action initiated pursuant to sec.”
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.