Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 814 — COURT COSTS, FEES, AND SURCHARGES
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 814.10 (2026)

Taxation of costs

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
814.10814.10 Taxation of costs.
814.10(1)(1) Clerk’s duty, notice, review. The clerk of circuit court shall tax and insert in the judgment and in the judgment and lien docket, if the judgment shall have been entered, on the application of the prevailing party, upon 3 days’ notice to the other, the sum of the costs and disbursements as provided in this chapter, verified by affidavit.
814.10(2)(2) Cost bill, service. All bills of costs shall be itemized and served with the notice of taxation.
814.10(3)(3) Objections, proofs, adjournment. The party opposing such taxation, or the taxation of any particular item shall file with the clerk a particular statement of the party’s objections, and the party may produce proof in support thereof and the clerk may adjourn such taxation, upon cause shown, a reasonable time to enable either party to produce such proof.
814.10(4)(4) Court review. The clerk shall note on the bill all items disallowed, and all items allowed, to which objections have been made. This action may be reviewed by the court on motion of the party aggrieved made and served within 10 days after taxation. The review shall be founded on the bill of costs and the objections and proof on file in respect to the bill of costs. No objection shall be entertained on review which was not made before the clerk, except to prevent great hardship or manifest injustice. Motions under this subsection may be heard under s. 807.13.
814.10 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 761 (1975); Stats. 1975 s. 814.10; Sup. Ct. Order, 141 Wis. 2d xiii (1987); 1987 a. 403; 1993 a. 486; 1995 a. 224.
814.10 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (4) is amended to allow motions to review costs to be heard by telephone conference. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1988]
814.10 AnnotationWhen a judgement included attorney fees exceeding the statutory limit and the clerk did not tax costs, an objection under sub. (4) was not required to allow consideration of the issue on appeal. Running v. Widdes, 52 Wis. 2d 254, 190 N.W.2d 169 (1971).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1980–2019 · leading case: Grube v. Daun, 570 N.W.2d 851 (Wis. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grube v. Daun, 570 N.W.2d 851 (Wis. 1997). · cites it 11× “The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to itemize properly their bills of cost under Wis. Stat. § 814.10 (2) 7 and that the circuit court taxed the costs prematurely, in violation of the procedures laid out in Wis.”
Redevelopment Auth. of Green Bay v. Bee Frank, Inc., 355 N.W.2d 240 (Wis. 1984). · cites it 5× “The Redevelopment Authority did not comply with sec. 814.10, Stats., which requires a party to file objections to the clerk of courts’ taxation within ten days.”
Soletski v. Krueger Int'l, Inc., 924 N.W.2d 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “06(4) literally so as to require prevailing parties to perfect taxation of their own costs within the thirty-day period.”
Nw. Wholesale Lumber, Inc. v. Anderson, 528 N.W.2d 502 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 5× “[1] He offers no authority for the assertion, other than a citation to § 814.10, STATS. That statute, however, simply sets *283 forth the procedure for taxing costs, and Anderson does not explain how its provisions aid his argument.”
Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist. v. City of Milwaukee, 2003 WI App 209 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “First, the City did not follow the proper procedure, outlined in Wis. Stat. § 814.10 (4), for the taxing of costs; and second, the photocopying expenses are not taxable under Wis.”
McConley v. T. C. Visions, Inc., 2016 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “06(4) requires the perfection of the judgment within thirty days, § 814.10(1) and (3) obligate the clerk of the circuit court to tax costs upon three days' notice to the opposing party unless taxation is adjourned due to objections, and § 814.”
Harder v. Pfitzinger, 2004 WI 102 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 2× “The only task that remained after the *335 circuit court issued the order for judgment 7 was the determination of the amount of costs.”
Prosser v. Leuck, 592 N.W.2d 178 (Wis. 1999). · cites it 2× “[5] These allowable costs include attorney fees and various disbursements. There is nothing in § 814.04 to indicate that costs associated with a coverage dispute, determined while the underlying case is stayed, are not included in items of cost.”
State, Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations v. Coatings, Inc., 376 N.W.2d 834 (Wis. 1985). · cites it 2× “” 3 Section 814.10(4), Stats., provides: “Court review.”
Purdy v. Cap Gemini Am., Inc., 2001 WI App 270 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “This could occur, either by a timely objection and judicial resolution of the issue under Wis. Stat. § 814.10 , or, as the supreme court noted in Hartman , by a timely request to postpone consideration of the fees issue until such time as the dispute may be fully resolved.”
Avudria v. McGlone Mortg. Co., 2011 WI App 95 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “On August 11, 2010[,] Judgment was entered in this case in favor of the defendant, McGlone Mortgage Company, Inc., and against the plaintiff, John J. Avudria, in the sum of $1,652.”
State v. Foster, 301 N.W.2d 192 (Wis. 1981). “4 See sec. 814.10, Stats. 5 See State ex rel. Korne v.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 814.10(1) — 5 cases
Nw. Wholesale Lumber, Inc. v. Anderson, 528 N.W.2d 502 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “[1] He offers no authority for the assertion, other than a citation to § 814.10, STATS. That statute, however, simply sets *283 forth the procedure for taxing costs, and Anderson does not explain how its provisions aid his argument.”
McConley v. T. C. Visions, Inc., 2016 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “06(4) requires the perfection of the judgment within thirty days, § 814.10(1) and (3) obligate the clerk of the circuit court to tax costs upon three days' notice to the opposing party unless taxation is adjourned due to objections, and § 814.”
Soletski v. Krueger Int'l, Inc., 924 N.W.2d 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “06(4) literally so as to require prevailing parties to perfect taxation of their own costs within the thirty-day period.”
Witkin, Weiby, Maki, Durst & Ledin, S.C. v. McMahon, 496 N.W.2d 688 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
Vill. of Shorewood v. Steinberg, 480 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
— Wis. Stat. § 814.10(2) — 1 case
Grube v. Daun, 570 N.W.2d 851 (Wis. 1997). “The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to itemize properly their bills of cost under Wis. Stat. § 814.10 (2) 7 and that the circuit court taxed the costs prematurely, in violation of the procedures laid out in Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 814.10(3) — 5 cases
Soletski v. Krueger Int'l, Inc., 924 N.W.2d 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “06(4) literally so as to require prevailing parties to perfect taxation of their own costs within the thirty-day period.”
Rhiel v. Wisconsin Cnty. Mut. Ins., 568 N.W.2d 4 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
Redevelopment Auth. of the City of Green Bay v. Bee Frank, Inc., 331 N.W.2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983).
Vill. of Shorewood v. Steinberg, 480 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
Witkin, Weiby, Maki, Durst & Ledin, S.C. v. McMahon, 496 N.W.2d 688 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
— Wis. Stat. § 814.10(4) — 4 cases
Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist. v. City of Milwaukee, 2003 WI App 209 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “First, the City did not follow the proper procedure, outlined in Wis. Stat. § 814.10 (4), for the taxing of costs; and second, the photocopying expenses are not taxable under Wis.”
McConley v. T. C. Visions, Inc., 2016 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “06(4) requires the perfection of the judgment within thirty days, § 814.10(1) and (3) obligate the clerk of the circuit court to tax costs upon three days' notice to the opposing party unless taxation is adjourned due to objections, and § 814.”
State, Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations v. Coatings, Inc., 376 N.W.2d 834 (Wis. 1985). “” 3 Section 814.10(4), Stats., provides: “Court review.”
Avudria v. McGlone Mortg. Co., 2011 WI App 95 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “On August 11, 2010[,] Judgment was entered in this case in favor of the defendant, McGlone Mortgage Company, Inc., and against the plaintiff, John J. Avudria, in the sum of $1,652.”
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.