Wis. Stat. § 808.03
Wis. Stat. § 808.03
An appeal cannot be taken from an order before it is entered. Ramsthal Advertising Agency v. Energy Miser, Inc., 90 Wis. 2d 74, 279 N.W.2d 491 (Ct. App. 1979). The test to determine whether a decision is a final order or judgment is whether the trial court contemplated that any additional formal document would be entered with respect to the matter covered in the decision. Frederick v. City of Janesville, 92 Wis. 2d 685, 285 N.W.2d 655 (1979). A pretrial order denying a motion to dismiss a 2nd trial on double jeopardy grounds is a final order appealable under sub. (2). State v. Jenich, 94 Wis. 2d 74, 288 N.W.2d 114 (1980). An order waiving jurisdiction over a juvenile is appealable under sub. (2). State ex rel. A.E. v. Green Lake County Cir. Ct., 94 Wis. 2d 98, 288 N.W.2d 125 (1980). Under s. 808.03(2), both the prosecution and defense may seek permissive appeal of nonfinal orders. State v. Rabe, 96 Wis. 2d 48, 291 N.W.2d 809 (1980). An order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is appealable by permission under s. 808.03(2). Heaton v. Independent Mortuary Corp., 97 Wis. 2d 379, 294 N.W.2d 15 (1980). Orders relating to venue are appealable by permission under sub. (2). Aparacor, Inc. v. DILHR, 97 Wis. 2d 399, 293 N.W.2d 545 (1980). An order enjoining a town from conducting an incorporation referendum under s. 60.81 terminated the only matter in litigation with respect to the town, although ch. 66 incorporation proceedings had not been finally determined by the order. In re Incorporation of Town of Fitchburg, 98 Wis. 2d 635, 299 N.W.2d 199 (1980). A court order setting aside an administrative order and remanding the case to the administrative agency disposed of the entire matter in litigation and was appealable as of right. Bearns v. DILHR, 102 Wis. 2d 70, 306 N.W.2d 22 (1981). When a counterclaim for abuse of process, severed for trial, was not yet determined, a judgment dismissing the complaint was not appealable under sub. (1). Brownsell v. Klawitter, 102 Wis. 2d 108, 306 N.W.2d 41 (1981). An order for a new trial is not appealable as of right. Wick v. Mueller, 105 Wis. 2d 191, 313 N.W.2d 799 (1982). The last document in litigation should indicate on its face that for purposes of appeal it is a final order or judgment and that no subsequent document is contemplated. Radoff v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 109 Wis. 2d 490, 326 N.W.2d 240 (1982). The trial court did not have jurisdiction to award attorney fees after the filing of a notice of appeal of another issue. Hengel v. Hengel, 120 Wis. 2d 522, 355 N.W.2d 846 (Ct. App. 1984). A court commissioner's order under s. 757.69(1) dismissing a criminal proceeding was not a "final order" under sub. (1). State v. Trongeau, 135 Wis. 2d 188, 400 N.W.2d 12 (Ct. App. 1986). An appellate court has no jurisdiction to review the denial of a postconviction motion if there is no final written order denying the motion on file in the clerk of court's office. State v. Malone, 136 Wis. 2d 250, 401 N.W.2d 563 (1987). A criminal defendant's right to appeal continues after death, regardless of the cause of death. State v. McDonald, 144 Wis. 2d 531, 424 N.W.2d 411 (1988). A judgment resolving the merits of a 42 USC 1983 action is final and appealable under sub. (1) although the issues of attorney fees remains unresolved. ACLU v. Thompson, 155 Wis. 2d 442, 455 N.W.2d 268 (Ct. App. 1990). The circuit court's retained jurisdiction in board of review certiorari actions under s. 70.47(13) does not affect the finality of an order for appeal purposes. Steenberg v. Town of Oakfield, 157 Wis. 2d 674, 461 N.W.2d 148 (Ct. App. 1990). An appeal of an oral revocation order under s. 343.305(10) may not be taken under sub. (1). State v. Borowski, 164 Wis. 2d 730, 476 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1991). When an appeal is taken as a matter of right, only the final document need be reduced to writing. Nonfinal rulings need not be reduced to writing to be eligible for review under an appeal of a subsequent final order. Jacquart v. Jacquart, 183 Wis. 2d 372, 515 N.W.2d 539 (Ct. App. 1994). Like a judgment of foreclosure and sale in the case a mortgage, a judgment of strict foreclosure of a land contract is a final judgment that must be appealed from within the time required under s. 808.04. Hackman v. Behm, 207 Wis. 2d 437, 558 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-3315. An order on the merits of an action is final for purposes of appeal even though a request for litigation expenses is pending. Laube v. City of Owen, 209 Wis. 2d 12, 561 N.W.2d 785 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2717. A party may waive the right to appeal in a civil case if the party has caused or induced a judgment to be entered or has stipulated to the entry of judgment. By stipulating to the entry of a conditional judgment, a party could not obtain a mandatory appeal of an interlocutory order. Cascade Mountain, Inc. v. Capitol Indemnity Corp., 212 Wis. 2d 265, 569 N.W.2d 45 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2562. See also Dyer v. Law, 2007 WI App 137, 302 Wis. 2d 207, 733 N.W.2d 328, 06-2957. Absconding from a juvenile treatment center was a rejection by the juvenile of the legitimate means afforded for challenging the court order and resulted in the forfeiture of the right to appeal. State v. Lamontae D.M., 223 Wis. 2d 503, 589 N.W.2d 415 (Ct. App. 1998), 98-1700. The event that triggers the appeal period for a traffic regulation case is the recording of the disposition in the circuit court docket and not the entry of a separate judgment or order in the office of the clerk of circuit court. City of Sheboygan v. Flores, 229 Wis. 2d 242, 598 N.W.2d 307 (Ct. App. 1999), 99-0954. The court of appeals shall grant all petitions for interlocutory appeal arising from a circuit court summary judgment order denying a state official's claim of qualified immunity under 42 USC 1983 if the order is based on an issue of law. Whether to grant such a petition is discretionary when it arises from a motion to dismiss. Powell v. Cooper, 2001 WI 10, 241 Wis. 2d 153, 622 N.W.2d 265, 98-0012. In the family law context, an order resolving the merits of a child support dispute, but not an attorney's fee issue, is final within the meaning of sub. (1). Campbell v. Campbell, 2003 WI App 8, 259 Wis. 2d 676, 659 N.W.2d 106, 02-0426. A circuit court order is a final order when: 1) it disposes of the entire matter in litigation under substantive law, and 2) the circuit court considered it to be the last document it would enter in the litigation. Contardi v. American Family Insurance Co., 2004 WI App 104, 273 Wis. 2d 509, 684 N.W.2d 139, 03-2284. When an order or a judgment is entered that disposes of all of the substantive issues in the litigation, as to one or more parties, as a matter of law, the circuit court intended it to be the final document for purposes of appeal, notwithstanding the label it bears or subsequent actions taken by the circuit court. If an order for judgment meets this criterion, it is a final order. Any historic distinction between an order and a judgment is not dispositive. Harder v. Pfitzinger, 2004 WI 102, 274 Wis. 2d 324, 682 N.W.2d 398, 03-1817. An order granting a plea withdrawal is not final because it plainly anticipates further proceedings in the criminal case. Accordingly, the state was not obligated to file an appeal within the 45-day time period and its failure to do so was not waiver. State v. Williams, 2005 WI App 221, 287 Wis. 2d 748, 706 N.W.2d 355, 04-1985. A document constitutes the final document for purposes of appeal when it: 1) has been entered by the circuit court, 2) disposes of the entire matter in litigation as to one or more parties, and 3) states on the face of the document that it is the final document for purposes of appeal. When a document would otherwise constitute the final document, but for not including a finality statement, courts will construe the document liberally in favor of preserving the right to appeal. Tyler v. The Riverbank, 2007 WI 33, 299 Wis. 2d 751, 728 N.W.2d 686, 05-2336. Deciding a case in the sense of merely analyzing legal issues and resolving questions of law does not dispose of an entire matter in litigation as to one or more parties. The court must act by explicitly dismissing or adjudging the entire matter in litigation as to one or more parties. In order to "dispose" of the matter under sub. (1), a memorandum decision must contain an explicit statement either dismissing or adjudging the entire matter in litigation as to one or more parties. Wambolt v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 2007 WI 35, 299 Wis. 2d 723, 728 N.W.2d 670, 05-1874. Effective September 1, 2007, final orders and judgments shall state that they are final for purposes of appeal. A document does not fulfill this requirement with a particular phrase or magic words, but must make clear on its face, that it is the document from which appeal may follow as a matter of right under sub. (1). Absent such a statement, appellate courts should liberally construe ambiguities to preserve the right of appeal. Wambolt v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 2007 WI 35, 299 Wis. 2d 723, 728 N.W.2d 670, 05-1874. Under Wambolt, neither the label of the document nor the circuit court's subsequent action (e.g., entering a judgment) is dispositive of the document's finality. An order may meet the finality criteria, notwithstanding the presence in the order of a reference to a future judgment or the entry of that judgment. Ecker Brothers v. Calumet County, 2008 WI App 81, 312 Wis. 2d 244, 752 N.W.2d 356, 07-2109. A trial court order remanding a case to an administrative agency was not a final order within the meaning of sub. (1) when it did not contain an explicit statement adjudicating the entire matter in litigation as to any party and it scheduled a hearing upon "return" from the agency for the purpose of reviewing the issues identified for consideration on remand. Citizens For U, Inc. v. DNR, 2010 WI App 21, 323 Wis. 2d 767, 780 N.W.2d 194, 08-2537. A traffic forfeiture case qualifies as having been "prosecuted in circuit court," within the meaning of sub. (1) (c) when the case has been appealed to the circuit court following an earlier municipal court decision. It follows that a docket entry of the case's disposition constitutes a final appealable judgment under sub. (1) (c). Village of McFarland v. Zetzman, 2012 WI App 49, 340 Wis. 2d 700, 811 N.W.2d 822, 11-1440. The prevailing party's claim for an award of attorney fees due under a contract does not affect the finality of a judgment or order that disposes of the entire matter in litigation as to one or more of the parties. There is no distinction between a claim for attorney fees based on a contract as opposed to one based on a statute. When the recovery of attorney fees is authorized by a statute or a contract, the attorney fees are litigation "disbursements and fees allowed by law" as set forth in s. 814.04(2). McConley v. T.C. Visions, Inc., 2016 WI App 74, 371 Wis. 2d 658, 885 N.W.2d 816, 16-0671. A proceeding to determine whether a defendant is competent is separate and distinct from the defendant's underlying criminal proceeding. Thus, an order that a defendant is not competent to proceed is a final order issued in a special proceeding and is appealable as of right pursuant to sub. (1). State v. Scott, 2018 WI 74, 382 Wis. 2d 476, 914 N.W.2d 141, 16-2017. Under Voss, 141 Wis. 267 (1910), the test to be applied in determining the nature of any judicial remedy, as regards whether it is a special proceeding, is whether it is a mere proceeding in an action, or one independently thereof or merely connected therewith. The latter two belong to the special class and the other does not. However, under this test, special proceedings need not occur outside of the underlying actions. L.G. v. Aurora Residential Alternatives, Inc., 2019 WI 79, 387 Wis. 2d 724, 929 N.W.2d 590, 18-0656. An application to stay pursuant to s. 788.02 is a special proceeding within the meaning of sub. (1). When a circuit court addresses such an application, the court resolves an issue separate and distinct from the issues presented in the pending lawsuit, but which is related or connected to that lawsuit. Thus, a circuit court order denying a request to compel arbitration and stay a pending lawsuit is final for the purposes of appeal. L.G. v. Aurora Residential Alternatives, Inc., 2019 WI 79, 387 Wis. 2d 724, 929 N.W.2d 590, 18-0656. Wisconsin Court of Appeals Appellate Jurisdiction. Klein & Leavell. Wis. Law. Sept. 1991. Interlocutory Appeals in Wisconsin. Towers, Arnold, Tess-Mattner, & Levenson. Wis. Law. July 1993. Understanding the New Rules of Appellate Procedure. Stephens. Wis. Law. July 2001. How to Appeal Mid-litigation Decisions. Alderman. Wis. Law. Dec. 2014.