Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 885.58 (2026)
Use in civil cases and special proceedings
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
885.58(1)(1) Subject to the standards and criteria set forth in ss. 885.54 and 885.56 and to the limitations of sub. (2), a circuit court may, on its own motion or at the request of any party, in any civil case or special proceeding permit the use of videoconferencing technology in any pre-trial, trial, or post-trial hearing.
885.58(2)(a)(a) A proponent of a witness via videoconferencing technology at any evidentiary hearing or trial shall file a notice of intention to present testimony by videoconference technology 30 days prior to the scheduled start of the proceeding. Any other party may file an objection to the testimony of a witness by videoconferencing technology within 10 days of the filing of the notice of intention. If the time limits of the proceeding do not permit the time periods provided for in this paragraph, the court may in its discretion shorten the time to file notice of intention and objection.
885.58(2)(b)(b) The court shall determine the objection in the exercise of its discretion under the criteria set forth in s. 885.56.
885.58 NoteComment, 2008: Regarding section 885.58, civil cases and special proceedings in general pose few problems of constitutional dimension concerning the use of videoconferencing technology and offer litigants the potential of significant savings in trial expenses. For these reasons, this technology will likely gain rapid acceptance resulting in expanding use. Where objections are raised, the rule provides that the circuit court will resolve the issue pursuant to the standards and decisional guidance set out in ss. 885.54 and 885.56.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2022–2025 · leading case: Racine Cnty. v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
Racine Cnty. v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§§ 885.58 and 885.60. The County also relied on P.”
Washburn Cnty. v. L. R. Y. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§§ 885.58, 885.60. However, § 885.60 removes the circuit court’s discretion to allow videoconferencing if a defendant or respondent objects to its use and the defendant or respondent is entitled to be physically present in the courtroom.”
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.