Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 885 — WITNESSES AND ORAL TESTIMONY
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 885.42 (2026)

When available

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
885.42885.42 When available.
885.42(1)(1) Depositions. Any deposition may be recorded by audiovisual videotape without a stenographic transcript. Any party to the action may arrange at the party’s expense to have a simultaneous stenographic record made. Except as provided by ss. 885.40 to 885.47, ch. 804 governing the practice and procedure in depositions and discovery shall apply.
885.42(2)(2) Other evidence. Such other evidence as is appropriate may be recorded by videotape and be presented at a trial. The court may direct a party or the court reporter to prepare a transcript of an audio or audiovisual recording presented under this subsection in accordance with SCR 71.01 (2) (e).
885.42(3)(3) Entire trial testimony and evidence. All trial proceedings, including evidence in its entirety, may be presented at a trial by videotape upon the approval of all parties and the trial judge. In determining whether to approve a videotape trial, the trial judge, after consultation with counsel, shall consider the cost involved, the nature of the action, and the nature and amount of testimony. The trial judge shall fix a date prior to the date of trial when all recorded testimony must be filed with the clerk of court.
885.42(4)(4) Trial record. At trial, videotape depositions shall be reported unless accompanied with a certified transcript submitted in accordance with SCR 71.01 (2) (d).
885.42 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, xii (1975); 1975 c. 218; 1987 a. 403; Sup. Ct. Order No. 10-06, 2010 WI 128, 329 Wis. 2d xxvii.
885.42 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1975: Sub. (1). The definition of depositions is meant to include adverse examinations prior to trial.
885.42 AnnotationSub. (2). This subsection anticipates that certain other evidence, such as the scene of an accident or the lifestyle of an accident victim, may be presented at trial by means of videotape. This provision would also allow the majority of a trial to be conducted by means of videotape.
885.42 AnnotationSub. (3). This subsection would authorize an entire videotape trial in Wisconsin. Such a trial could only occur upon the approval of all parties and the presiding judge. Appropriate safeguards are included to ensure that this provision would be used only when clearly appropriate. Procedure for a videotape trial is subject to agreement among the parties and the court.
885.42 AnnotationSub. (4). This subsection establishes that matters presented by videotape at trial are made a part of the trial record in anticipation of a possible appeal. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1976]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2021 · leading case: DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C. v. Galaxy Gaming & Racing Ltd., 2004 WI 92 (Wis. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C. v. Galaxy Gaming & Racing Ltd., 2004 WI 92 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 16× “Specifically, they contend that Wis. Stat. § 885.42 (1) requires that a party arranging a simultaneous stenographic record do so at its own expense.”
DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C. v. Galaxy Gaming & Racing Ltd. P'ship, 2003 WI App 190 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 13× “When the Companies challenged DeWitt's claim for costs for the Havenick transcript, they argued to the circuit court that a party could not recover the costs of a transcript of a videotape deposition because such an expense was disallowed by Wis. Stat. § 885.42 (1). That statute…”
Gieseke v. Dep't of Transp., 426 N.W.2d 79 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “"Section 885.42, Stats., differentiates between depositions, other evidence and entire trial testimony and evidence recorded on videotapes.”
State v. Marinez, 2010 WI App 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “1, 2010). The order, dated December 11, 2009, also requires the Committee of Chief Judges and District Court Administrators to collaborate with appellate practitioners and other interested parties to evaluate whether amendments to Wis.”
State v. Haefer, 328 N.W.2d 894 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “44 contain requirements for notice and procedure used for taking depositions. A deposition is a statement made under oath.”
In Re Marriage of Halko v. Halko, 2005 WI App 99 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “§ 885.42(1) expressly permits this means of taking a deposition.”
MDS Enter., Inc. v. Mid-State Truck Serv., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 885.42(1), which states in relevant part that “[a]ny deposition may be recorded by audiovisual videotape without a stenographic transcript.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.42(1) — 4 cases
DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C. v. Galaxy Gaming & Racing Ltd., 2004 WI 92 (Wis. 2004). “Specifically, they contend that Wis. Stat. § 885.42 (1) requires that a party arranging a simultaneous stenographic record do so at its own expense.”
DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C. v. Galaxy Gaming & Racing Ltd. P'ship, 2003 WI App 190 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “When the Companies challenged DeWitt's claim for costs for the Havenick transcript, they argued to the circuit court that a party could not recover the costs of a transcript of a videotape deposition because such an expense was disallowed by Wis. Stat. § 885.42 (1). That statute…”
In Re Marriage of Halko v. Halko, 2005 WI App 99 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “§ 885.42(1) expressly permits this means of taking a deposition.”
MDS Enter., Inc. v. Mid-State Truck Serv., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 885.42(1), which states in relevant part that “[a]ny deposition may be recorded by audiovisual videotape without a stenographic transcript.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.42(2) — 1 case
Gieseke v. Dep't of Transp., 426 N.W.2d 79 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “"Section 885.42, Stats., differentiates between depositions, other evidence and entire trial testimony and evidence recorded on videotapes.”
— Wis. Stat. § 885.42(4) — 1 case
State v. Marinez, 2010 WI App 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “1, 2010). The order, dated December 11, 2009, also requires the Committee of Chief Judges and District Court Administrators to collaborate with appellate practitioners and other interested parties to evaluate whether amendments to Wis.”
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.