Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 971 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AND AT TRIAL
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 971.30 (2026)

Motion defined

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
971.30971.30 Motion defined.
971.30(1)(1) ‘‘Motion” means an application for an order.
971.30(2)(2) Unless otherwise provided or ordered by the court, all motions shall meet the following criteria:
971.30(2)(a)(a) Be in writing.
971.30(2)(b)(b) Contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the venue, the title of the action, the file number, a denomination of the party seeking the order or relief and a brief description of the type of order or relief sought.
971.30(2)(c)(c) State with particularity the grounds for the motion and the order or relief sought.
971.30 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 171 Wis. 2d xix (1992).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: State v. Caban, 563 N.W.2d 501 (Wis. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Caban, 563 N.W.2d 501 (Wis. 1997). · cites it 12× “Neither the principle of notice, nor Wis. Stat. § 971.30 makes an exception for motions raising Fourth Amendment challenges.”
State v. Schaefer, 2008 WI 25 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 8× “" See Wis. Stat. § 971.30 . The police chief's failure to honor the subpoena would likely lead to "an application for an order" to comply.”
State v. Radder, 915 N.W.2d 180 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “§ 971.30. He is wrong. Our supreme court has explained, The rationale underlying [ WIS.”
State v. Allen, 2004 WI 106 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 2× “At a minimum, a motion, whether made pretrial or postconviction, must "[s]tate with particularity the [factual and legal] grounds for the motion," Wis. Stat. § 971.30 (2)(c) (2001-02), and must provide a "good faith argument" that the relevant law entitles the movant to relief,…”
State v. Balliette, 2011 WI 79 (Wis. 2011). · cites it 2× “" Wis. Stat. § 971.30 . When the relief sought is a new trial based upon the alleged ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel, this statute appears to require some particularity of how the defendant intends to show that postconviction counsel's performance was…”
State v. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74 (Wis. 2007). · cites it 4× “Wis. Stat. § 971.30 . A motion to withdraw a plea must specifically do the following: (1) make a prima facie showing of a violation of Wis.”
State v. Moran, 2005 WI 115 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 4× “is so open ended in terms of the "physical evidence" that a *46 district attorney is required to disclose, there is a practical necessity that a motion to disclose should comply with Wis. Stat. § 971.30 (2), stating "with particularity" the evidence or the type of evidence that…”
State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 2× “(Rule) § 971.30(1). [20] Wis. Citizens Concerned for Cranes & Doves v.”
State v. Velez, 589 N.W.2d 9 (Wis. 1999). · cites it 4× “2d 501 (1997); see also Wis. Stat. § 971.30 (2)(c) (1995-96). Second, the procedure would require that the motion to dismiss raise a question of fact sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.”
State v. Negrete, 2012 WI 92 (Wis. 2012). · cites it 2× “Here, the legislature has effectively provided that "manifest injustice" is established by satisfying the elements of Wis. Stat.”
State v. Julius C. Burton, 2013 WI 61 (Wis. 2013). · cites it 2× “" Wis. Stat. § 971.30 (2)(c). This court has developed particularized standards for Nelson/Bentley motions to secure an evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.”
State v. Garner, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “]" Citing § 971.30(2)(c), Stats., 4 the trial court explained: [C]ommon sense suggests a requirement that facts be alleged which justify the relief requested.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 971.30(1) — 3 cases
State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55 (Wis. 2008). “(Rule) § 971.30(1). [20] Wis. Citizens Concerned for Cranes & Doves v.”
State v. Hays, 496 N.W.2d 645 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
Cnty. of Vilas v. Danber, 316 N.W.2d 346 (Wis. 1982).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.30(2) — 4 cases
State v. Copening, 309 N.W.2d 850 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
State v. Caban, 563 N.W.2d 501 (Wis. 1997). “Neither the principle of notice, nor Wis. Stat. § 971.30 makes an exception for motions raising Fourth Amendment challenges.”
Cnty. of Vilas v. Danber, 316 N.W.2d 346 (Wis. 1982).
State v. Alonzo Jeremiah Hall (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.30(2)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Radder, 915 N.W.2d 180 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 971.30. He is wrong. Our supreme court has explained, The rationale underlying [ WIS.”
State v. Garner, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “]" Citing § 971.30(2)(c), Stats., 4 the trial court explained: [C]ommon sense suggests a requirement that facts be alleged which justify the relief requested.”
State v. Caban, 563 N.W.2d 501 (Wis. 1997). “Neither the principle of notice, nor Wis. Stat. § 971.30 makes an exception for motions raising Fourth Amendment challenges.”
State v. Marc Schiel (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Alonzo Jeremiah Hall (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
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.