Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 905.01 (2026)
Privileges recognized only as provided
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
905.01905.01 Privileges recognized only as provided. Except as provided by or inherent or implicit in statute or in rules adopted by the supreme court or required by the constitution of the United States or Wisconsin, no person has a privilege to:
905.01(4)(4) Prevent another from being a witness or disclosing any matter or producing any object or writing.
905.01 AnnotationThis section precludes courts from recognizing common law privileges not contained in the statutes, or the U.S. or Wisconsin Constitutions. Privileges and confidentialities granted by statute are strictly interpreted. Davison v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 75 Wis. 2d 190, 248 N.W.2d 433 (1977).
905.01 AnnotationA defendant did not have standing to complain that a physician’s testimony violated the witness’s physician-patient privilege under s. 905.04; the defendant was not authorized to claim the privilege on the patient’s behalf. State v. Echols, 152 Wis. 2d 725, 449 N.W.2d 320 (Ct. App. 1989).
905.01 AnnotationAs s. 907.06 (1) prevents a court from compelling an expert to testify, it logically follows that a litigant should not be able to so compel an expert and a privilege to refuse to testify is implied. Burnett v. Alt, 224 Wis. 2d 72, 589 N.W.2d 21 (1999), 96-3356.
905.01 AnnotationUnder Alt, 224 Wis. 2d 72 (1999), a person asserting the privilege not to offer expert opinion testimony can be required to give that testimony only if: 1) there are compelling circumstances present; 2) there is a plan for reasonable compensation of the expert; and 3) the expert will not be required to do additional preparation for the testimony. An exact question requiring expert opinion testimony and a clear assertion of the privilege are required for a court to decide whether compelling circumstances exist. Alt does not apply to observations made by a person’s treating physician relating to the care or treatment provided to the patient. Glenn v. Plante, 2004 WI 24, 269 Wis. 2d 575, 676 N.W.2d 413, 02-1426.
905.01 AnnotationThe “inherent or implicit” language in this section is quite narrow in scope and was included by the supreme court to preserve a particular work product privilege already recognized at the time this language was added to the statute, while leaving other privileges to be provided for more expressly in other statutory provisions. Sands v. Whitnall School District, 2008 WI 89, 312 Wis. 2d 1, 754 N.W.2d 439, 05-1026.
905.01 AnnotationClosed Session, Open Book: Sifting the Sands Case. Bach. Wis. Law. Oct. 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: Sands v. Whitnall Sch. Dist., 2008 WI 89 (Wis. 2008).
Sands v. Whitnall Sch. Dist., 2008 WI 89 (Wis. 2008). “" The court of appeals agreed, holding that the language of § 19.”
Imposition of Sanctions in Alt v. Cline, 589 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. 1999). “2d at 350 -51 (quoting Wis. Stat. § 905.01 ). See also Wis. Stat.”
Custodian of Records for the Legislative Tech. Servs. Bureau v. State, 2004 WI 65 (Wis. 2004). “96 and Wis. Stat. § 905.01 ; (2) that the subpoena violates Article IV, Section 16 of the Wisconsin Constitution; (3) that the subpoena violates the common law separation of powers doctrine; (4) that the subpoena violates Article IV, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution; and…”
Carney-Hayes Ex Rel. McCormack v. Nw. Wisconsin Home Care, Inc., 2005 WI 118 (Wis. 2005). “Wis. Stat. § 905.01 . *74 ¶ 20. This statute, along with our common law tradition, led us to the unremarkable declaration that "Privileges are the exception, not the rule.”
Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980). “12, § 1605 (1973); Wis. Stat. §§ 905.01 , 905.05 (1975). In 1901, Congress enacted a rule of evidence for the District of Columbia that made husband and wife "competent but not compellable to testify for or against each other," except as to confidential communications.”
Davison v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 248 N.W.2d 433 (Wis. 1977). “Furthermore, the enactment of sec. 905.01, Stats., Wisconsin Rules of Evidence, is an alteration or suspension of the common law within the contemplation of the constitution.”
State v. Alan S. Johnson, 2023 WI 39 (Wis. 2023). “" Wis. Stat. § 905.01 (1)-(3); see also State v.”
State v. Schmidt, 2016 WI App 45 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “This principle is codified in Wis. Stat. § 905.01 , which states that unless a statutory or constitutional provision requires otherwise, no person has the privilege to refuse to be a witness, refuse to disclose any matter, refuse to produce any object or writing, or prevent…”
State Ex Rel. Herget v. Circuit Court for Waukesha Cnty., 267 N.W.2d 309 (Wis. 1978). “Section 905.01, Stats, provides: “905.01 Privileges recognized only as provided.”
Neely v. State, 272 N.W.2d 381 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978). “Is the use immunity purportedly created violative of sec. 905.01, Stats.? 9. In a multiple count information or indictment, can testimony with respect to one count acquire use immunity for another count? 10.”
Glenn v. Plante, 2004 WI 24 (Wis. 2004). “" Wis. Stat. § 905.01 (2001-02). 7 See also Alt 224 Wis.”
State v. Gilbert, 326 N.W.2d 744 (Wis. 1982). “Sec. 905.01, Stats. 1979-80, sets forth this state’s adoption of the principle that each individual must testify and that privileges from testifying are limited.”
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.