802.06 (2) is so raised, it need not be set forth in a subsequent pleading. (4) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DENY. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the fact, nature and extent of injury and damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading, except that a party whose prior pleadings set forth all denials and defenses to be relied upon in defending a claim for contribution need not respond to such
History: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 614 (1975); Sup. Ct. Order, 104 Wis. 2d xi (1981); Sup. Ct. Order, 171 Wis. 2d xix (1992); 2005 a. 253; 2007 a. 97. Judicial Council Committee’s Note on sub. (1), 1981: See 1981 Note to s. 802.02 (4). [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1982] In the absence of an answer to a cross claim and in the absence of any other responsive pleadings, a court may deem facts alleged in the cross claim and submis-
May 22, 2026, are designated by NOTES. (Published 5-22-26)
802.02
PLEADINGS, MOTIONS AND PRETRIAL PRACTICE
claim. Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided. (5) PLEADINGS TO BE CONCISE AND DIRECT; CONSISTENCY. (a) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct. No technical forms of pleading or motions are required. (b) A party may set forth 2 or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one claim or defense or in separate claims or defenses. When 2 or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as the party has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or equitable grounds. All statements shall be made subject to the obligations set forth in s. 802.05. (6) CONSTRUCTION OF PLEADINGS. All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice. History: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 616 (1975); 1975 c. 218; Sup. Ct. Order, 82 Wis. 2d ix (1978); Sup. Ct. Order, 104 Wis. 2d xi (1981); 1987 a. 256; 1993 a. 486. Cross-reference: See s. 806.01 (1) (c) for the effect of a demand for judgment or want of such a demand in the complaint in case of judgment by default. Cross-reference: See ss. 891.29 and 891.31 as to the effect of not denying an allegation in the complaint of corporate or partnership existence. Judicial Council Committee’s Note, 1977: Sub. (1) is amended to allow a pleading setting forth a claim for relief under the Rules of Civil Procedure to contain a short and plain statement of any series of transactions, occurrences, or events under which a claim for relief arose. This modification will allow a pleader in a consumer protection or anti-trust case, for example, to plead a pattern of business transactions, occurrences or events leading to a claim of relief rather than having to specifically plead each and every transaction, occurrence or event when the complaint is based on a pattern or course of business conduct involving either a substantial span of time or multiple and continuous transactions and events. The change is consistent with Rule 8 (a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Re Order effective July 1, 1978] Judicial Council Committee’s Note, 1981: Sub. (4) has been amended and s.