Section 809.51 - Rule (Supervisory writ and original jurisdiction to issue prerogative writ)(1) A person may request the court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction or its original jurisdiction to issue a prerogative writ over a court and the presiding judge, or other person or body, by filing a petition and supporting memorandum. The petition shall be served on each party and proposed respondent, and, if applicable, upon the originating court or tribunal, by traditional methods as provided in s. 809.80(2). The petition and memorandum combined may not exceed 35 pages if a monospaced font or handwriting is used, or 8,000 words if a proportional serif font is used. The petitioner shall name as respondents the court and judge, or other person or body, and all other parties in the action or proceeding. The petition shall contain:(a) A statement of the issues presented by the controversy;(b) A statement of the facts necessary to an understanding of the issues;(c) The relief sought; and(d) The reasons why the court should take jurisdiction.(1m) The clerk of the court of appeals shall docket the petition upon receipt of the items referred to in sub. (1). The clerk shall assign a case number, create a notice that the petition has been docketed, transmit the notice of docketing to the clerk of circuit court if applicable, and send the notice of docketing to the parties by traditional methods.(2) The court may deny the petition ex parte or may order the respondents to file a response with a supporting memorandum, if any, and may order oral argument on the merits of the petition. The response and memorandum combined may not exceed 35 pages if a monospaced font or handwriting is used, or 8,000 words if a proportional serif font is used. The respondents shall respond with supporting memorandum within 14 days after service of the order. A respondent may file a letter stating that the respondent does not intend to file a response, but the petition is not thereby admitted.(3) The court, upon a consideration of the petition, responses, supporting memoranda and argument, may grant or deny the petition or order such additional proceedings as it considers appropriate. Costs and fees may be awarded against any party in a writ proceeding.(4) A person filing a petition or response under this section shall file with the petition or response a certification setting forth the word count or page count of the document as provided in sub. (1) or (2).Amended by Sup. Ct. Order 20-07 (2021), eff. 7/1/2021.Sup. Ct. Order, 83 Wis. 2d xiii; Sup. Ct. Order, 104 Wis. 2d xi (1978); Sup. Ct. Order, 151 Wis. 2d xix (1981); Sup. Ct. Order, 164 Wis. 2d xxix (1991); Sup. Ct. Order, 171 Wis. 2d xxxv (1992); Sup. Ct. Order No. 93-20, 179 Wis. 2d xxv; Sup. Ct. Order No. 00-02, 2001 WI 39, 242 Wis. 2d xxvii.Comment, 2021
Unlike an appeal from a circuit court proceeding, writs and original actions do not necessarily arise from a pending case through which the parties can be served electronically. A proceeding under this section is a new action that must be served on the respondents by traditional methods.
The court of appeals abused its discretion by ordering oral argument one day after the petition for a writ was filed and served. State ex rel. Breier v. Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 91 Wis. 2d 833, 284 N.W.2d 102 (1979). The court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain original actions unrelated to its supervisory or appellate authority over circuit courts. State ex rel. Swan v. Elections Board, 133 Wis. 2d 87, 394 N.W.2d 732 (1986). The term "supervisory writ" is both: 1) the general term used in petitioning the court of appeals to exercise its constitutional supervisory authority and in petitioning the supreme court to exercise its constitutional superintending authority; and 2) a new writ the supreme court devised independent of the traditional common law writs. State ex rel. CityDeck Landing LLC v. Circuit Court for Brown County, 2019 WI 15, 385 Wis. 2d 516, 922 N.W.2d 832, 18-0291. Neither this section nor equity imposes a prompt and speedy pleading requirement in the filing of a petition for habeas corpus. The equitable defense of laches exists to address any prejudice to the state caused by a petitioner's unreasonable delay in the filing of a habeas petition. A habeas petition may not be denied ex parte solely because the petitioner failed to assert and demonstrate the petitioner sought relief in a prompt and speedy manner. State ex rel. Lopez-Quintero v. Dittmann, 2019 WI 58, 387 Wis. 2d 50, 928 N.W.2d 480, 18-0203.