Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 885.11 (2026)
Disobedient witness
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
885.11(1)(1) Damages recoverable. If any person obliged to attend as a witness shall fail to do so without any reasonable excuse, the person shall be liable to the aggrieved party for all damages occasioned by such failure, to be recovered in an action.
885.11(2)(2) Attendance compelled. Every court, in case of unexcused failure to appear before it, may issue an attachment to bring such witness before it for the contempt, and also to testify.
885.11(3)(3) Punishment in courts. Inexcusable failure to attend any court of record is a contempt of the court, punishable by a fine not exceeding $200.
885.11(4)(4) Same. Unexcused failure to attend a court not of record shall be a contempt, and the witness shall be fined all the costs of the witness’s apprehension, unless the witness shall show reasonable cause for his or her failure; in which case the party procuring the witness to be apprehended shall pay said costs.
885.11(5)(5) Striking out pleading. If any party to an action or proceeding shall unlawfully refuse or neglect to appear or testify or depose therein, either within or without the state, the court may, also, strike out the party’s pleading, and give judgment against the party as upon default or failure of proof.
885.11 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See also s. 804.12 (4) regarding failure to appear at deposition.
885.11 AnnotationSub. (5) is broad enough to include the failure to produce documents at a discovery examination, but a party cannot delay seven years before making the motion to strike the pleading. “Unlawfully” means without legal excuse, which must be determined at a hearing. Gipson Lumber Co. v. Schickling, 56 Wis. 2d 164, 201 N.W.2d 500 (1972).
885.11 AnnotationThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with a discovery order. Furrenes v. Ford Motor Co., 79 Wis. 2d 260, 255 N.W.2d 511 (1977).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1969–2017 · leading case: Rao v. WMA Sec., Inc., 2008 WI 73 (Wis. 2008).
Rao v. WMA Sec., Inc., 2008 WI 73 (Wis. 2008). “2d 500 (1972), the court applied this due process principle to a discovery case: While sec. 885.11(5), Stats.,[ [6] ] does not specifically refer to a refusal to produce documents under subpoena duces tecum, which seems to be the main ground upon which the trial court struck the…”
State v. Keimonte Antonie Wilson, Sr., 2017 WI 63 (Wis. 2017). “Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 885.11 (2), for an attachment to issue there must have been an "unexcused failure to appear.”
Evans v. Luebke, 2003 WI App 207 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “, Wis. Stat. §§ 885.11 and 885.12 (failure of a witness to appear punishable as contempt); Wis.”
Stern v. Thompson & Coates, Ltd., 517 N.W.2d 658 (Wis. 1994). “15 He also alleged that the body attachment was improper because neither sec. 885.11, Stats., nor sec. 818.02(l)(f), Stats.”
State v. King, 2005 WI App 224 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “"Any subpoena may be served by any person by exhibiting and reading it to the *769 witness, or by giving the witness a copy thereof, or by leaving such copy at the witness's abode.”
State v. Moore, 2006 WI App 61 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “No person may legally refuse to respond to a subpoena to testify, see Wis. Stat. § 885.11 , al *116 though the United States and Wisconsin constitutions and evidence statutes provide limited privileges as to what a witness may be required to disclose.”
Furrenes v. Ford Motor Co., 255 N.W.2d 511 (Wis. 1977). “, provides that, for failure or refusal of a party to comply with a discovery order, the court may “.”
Dubman v. North Shore Bank, 249 N.W.2d 797 (Wis. 1977). “We have also construed sec. 885.11(5), Stats., granting the power to strike pleadings for an unlawful refusal to depose, to authorize such action in the case of an unlawful failure to obey a subpoena duces tecum.”
Hauer v. Christon, 168 N.W.2d 81 (Wis. 1969). “The plaintiff argues the court has the power to strike a pleading under sec. 885.11, Stats., but this section is not applicable.”
Sell v. Thompson & Costes, Ltd., 472 N.W.2d 834 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “02(l)(f) or sec. 885.11(2), Stats., which provides that if a witness unexcusably fails to appear, a court may issue an attachment to bring such witness before it for the contempt and to testify.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.11(2) — 3 cases
Stern v. Thompson & Coates, Ltd., 517 N.W.2d 658 (Wis. 1994). “15 He also alleged that the body attachment was improper because neither sec. 885.11, Stats., nor sec. 818.02(l)(f), Stats.”
State v. King, 2005 WI App 224 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “"Any subpoena may be served by any person by exhibiting and reading it to the *769 witness, or by giving the witness a copy thereof, or by leaving such copy at the witness's abode.”
Sell v. Thompson & Costes, Ltd., 472 N.W.2d 834 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “02(l)(f) or sec. 885.11(2), Stats., which provides that if a witness unexcusably fails to appear, a court may issue an attachment to bring such witness before it for the contempt and to testify.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.11(5) — 3 cases
Rao v. WMA Sec., Inc., 2008 WI 73 (Wis. 2008). “2d 500 (1972), the court applied this due process principle to a discovery case: While sec. 885.11(5), Stats.,[ [6] ] does not specifically refer to a refusal to produce documents under subpoena duces tecum, which seems to be the main ground upon which the trial court struck the…”
Furrenes v. Ford Motor Co., 255 N.W.2d 511 (Wis. 1977). “, provides that, for failure or refusal of a party to comply with a discovery order, the court may “.”
Dubman v. North Shore Bank, 249 N.W.2d 797 (Wis. 1977). “We have also construed sec. 885.11(5), Stats., granting the power to strike pleadings for an unlawful refusal to depose, to authorize such action in the case of an unlawful failure to obey a subpoena duces tecum.”
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.