Go Syfert

Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 810.13 (2026)

Verdict

✓ current as of July 2026

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

810.13810.13 Verdict.

810.13(1)(1) Upon the trial, the court or jury shall find all of the following:

810.13(1)(a)(a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property involved.

810.13(1)(b)(b) Whether the defendant unlawfully took or detained the property involved.

810.13(1)(c)(c) The value of the property involved.

810.13(1)(d)(d) The damages sustained by the successful party from any unlawful taking or unjust detention of the property to the time of the trial.

810.13(2)(2) Judgment shall be entered in accordance with s. 810.14.

810.13 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 758, 777 (1975); Stats. 1975 s. 810.13; 1995 a. 225.

810.13 AnnotationAlthough an original taking of property is lawful, its subsequent detention may be unlawful. Capitol Sand & Gravel Co. v. Waffenschmidt, 71 Wis. 2d 227, 237 N.W.2d 745 (1976).

810.13 AnnotationWhile a wrongful detention claim may arise when an initially lawful possession becomes unlawful by exceeding the owner’s authorization, this is not the only factual scenario that gives rise to such a claim. A wrongful detention claim may arise against a possessor of previously converted or wrongfully taken property. Mueller v. TL90108, LLC, 2020 WI 7, 390 Wis. 2d 34, 938 N.W.2d 566, 17-1962.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Ford Motor Co. v. Lyons, 405 N.W.2d 354 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ford Motor Co. v. Lyons, 405 N.W.2d 354 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “Replevin It is undisputed that the trial court failed to submit the replevin questions contemplated by sec. 810.13, Stats. 28 The dealership contends this was error.”

Richard A. Mueller v. TL90108, LLC, 2020 WI 7 (Wis. 2020). · cites it 2× “Wis. Stat. § 810.13 (1). This statutory provision tracks the requirements for replevin at common law.”

Lewis v. Sullivan, 524 N.W.2d 630 (Wis. 1994). · cites it 2× “1991-92, provides as follows: "Upon the trial the court or jury shall find: (1) whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property involved; (2) whether the defendant unlawfully took or detained the same; (3) the value thereof; (4) the damages sustained by the…”

Lewis v. Young, 470 N.W.2d 328 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Sections 810.13 and 810.14, Stats. If the rules do not prohibit Lewis from receiving his improved typewriter, Paschke had a duty not to interfere, and Lewis may recover money damages from him under state tort law.”

Leola Voegtline v. Clarion Bannach (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “§§ 810.13, 810.14 is a question of law that this court reviews independently.”

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Deanna Freeman (W.D. Wis. 2026). · cites it 2× “25, 2025) (citing Wis. Stat. § 810.13 (1)). Allstate seeks the return of the notes and printouts in Freeman’s possession that contain Allstate’s confidential information, and of Freeman’s personal cellphone containing Allstate’s confidential information.”

Samantha Elliot v. Tyler Hansel (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 810.13(1); see also Mueller, 390 Wis. 2d 34, ¶12 .”

— Wis. Stat. § 810.13(1) — 2 cases

Leola Voegtline v. Clarion Bannach (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§§ 810.13, 810.14 is a question of law that this court reviews independently.”

Samantha Elliot v. Tyler Hansel (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 810.13(1); see also Mueller, 390 Wis. 2d 34, ¶12 .”

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.