805.14.Motions challenging sufficiency of evidence; motions after verdict.

Ch. 805: Trials · Last amended 2007 · Last verified July 15, 2026

In one sentenceSection 805.14 sets the standard and procedure for challenging the sufficiency of the evidence at trial, covering directed verdict at the close of evidence, judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a motion to change an answer after the jury returns its verdict, and requires the grounds for any such motion to be stated with particularity.

Full Text of Section 805.14

Text sizeJump to: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

(1) TEST OF SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. No motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law to support a verdict, or an answer in a verdict, shall be granted unless the court is satisfied that, considering all credible evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, there is no credible evidence to sustain a finding in favor of such party.

(2) NONSUIT ABOLISHED; MISDESIGNATION OF MOTIONS.

(a) The involuntary nonsuit is abolished. If a motion for involuntary nonsuit is made, it shall be treated as a motion to dismiss.

(b) When a party mistakenly designates a motion to dismiss as a motion for directed verdict, or vice versa; or mistakenly designates a motion to change answer as a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or vice versa; or otherwise mistakenly designates a motion challenging the sufficiency of evidence as a matter of law, the court shall treat the motion as if there had been a proper designation.

(3) MOTION AT CLOSE OF PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence in trials to the jury, any defendant may move for dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. If the court determines that the defendant is entitled to dismissal, the court shall state with particularity on the record or in its order of dismissal the grounds upon which the dismissal was granted and shall render judgment against the plaintiff.

(4) MOTION AT CLOSE OF ALL EVIDENCE. In trials to the jury, at the close of all evidence, any party may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law by moving for directed verdict or dismissal or by moving the court to find as a matter of law upon any claim or defense or upon any element or ground thereof.

(5) MOTIONS AFTER VERDICT.

(a) Motion for judgment. A motion for judgment on the verdict is not required. If no motion after verdict is filed within the time period specified in s. 805.16, judgment shall be entered on the verdict at the expiration thereof. If a motion after verdict is timely filed, judgment on the verdict shall be entered upon denial of the motion.

(b) Motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict. A party against whom a verdict has been rendered may move the court for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in the event that the verdict is proper but, for reasons evident in the record which bear upon matters not included in the verdict, the movant should have judgment.

(c) Motion to change answer. Any party may move the court to change an answer in the verdict on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the answer.

(d) Motion for directed verdict. A party who has made a motion for directed verdict or dismissal on which the court has not ruled pending return of the verdict may renew the motion after verdict. In the event the motion is granted, the court may enter judgment in accordance with the motion.

(e) Preliminary motions. It is not necessary to move for a directed verdict or dismissal prior to submission of the case to the jury in order to move subsequently for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or to change answer.

(f) Telephone hearings. Motions under this subsection may be heard as prescribed in s. 807.13.

(6) GROUNDS TO BE STATED WITH PARTICULARITY. In any motion challenging the sufficiency of evidence, the grounds of the motion shall be stated with particularity. Mere conclusory statements and statements lacking express reference to the specific element of claim or defense as to which the evidence is claimed to be deficient shall be deemed insufficient to entitle the movant to the order sought. If the court grants a motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the court shall state on the record or in writing with particularity the evidentiary defect underlying the order.

(7) EFFECT OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies for good cause recited in the order, any dismissal under this section operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

(8) NONWAIVER. A party who moves for dismissal or for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent may offer evidence in the event that the motion is not granted without having reserved the right to do so and to the same extent as if the motion had not been made. A motion for a directed verdict which is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury even though all parties to the action have moved for directed verdict.

(9) INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF COUNTERCLAIM, CROSS CLAIM OR 3RD-PARTY CLAIM. This section applies to counterclaims, cross claims, and 3rd-party claims.

End

Official Notes

Judicial Council Committee’s Note, 1976: Sub. (3) applies only to trials to the jury, codifying Household Utilities, Inc. v. Andrews Co., 71 Wis. 2nd 17 (1976). The standard for granting a motion under sub. (3) is found in sub. (1). Motions made by a defendant for dismissal after a plaintiff has completed presenting his evidence in trials to the court is governed by s. 805.17 (1). [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1977]

Judicial Council Note, 1984: Sub. (5) (a) is amended by eliminating the requirement for a motion before judgment is entered on a verdict. [Re Order effective July 1, 1984]

Judicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (5) (f) [created] allows motions after verdict to be heard by telephone conference. [Re Order effective Jan. 1, 1988]

Plain-English Summary

Section 805.14(1) sets a demanding standard for any motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence: the court cannot grant it unless, considering all credible evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, there is no credible evidence to sustain a finding in that party’s favor. Section 805.14(2) abolishes the involuntary nonsuit and treats one, if made, as a motion to dismiss, and it requires the court to treat a mislabeled motion, such as a motion to dismiss filed as a motion for directed verdict, a motion to change answer filed as a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or vice versa, as if it had been properly designated.

At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence in a jury trial, Section 805.14(3) lets a defendant move to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence, and if the court grants it, the court has to state the grounds with particularity and render judgment against the plaintiff. At the close of all the evidence, Section 805.14(4) lets any party challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by moving for a directed verdict, dismissal, or a finding as a matter of law on any claim, defense, or element.

After the verdict, Section 805.14(5) covers several related motions: judgment on the verdict, which is entered automatically if no timely motion is filed; judgment notwithstanding the verdict, available when the verdict itself is proper but the record shows the movant should have judgment anyway; a motion to change an answer in the verdict for insufficient evidence; and renewal of an earlier directed verdict motion the court did not rule on before submission. A party does not have to move for a directed verdict before the case goes to the jury in order to move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or to change an answer afterward. Section 805.14(6) requires the grounds for any of these motions to be stated with particularity, rejecting conclusory statements, and Section 805.14(7) treats a dismissal under this section as an adjudication on the merits unless the court specifies otherwise for good cause. Section 805.14(8) makes clear that moving for dismissal or a directed verdict does not waive the right to offer evidence if the motion is denied, and a denied directed verdict motion is not a waiver of trial by jury even if every party made one.

Frequently Asked Questions

What standard does a Wisconsin court use to decide a motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence?

The motion cannot be granted unless, considering all credible evidence and reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, the court is satisfied there is no credible evidence to sustain a finding in that party’s favor.

Is there still such a thing as an involuntary nonsuit in Wisconsin?

No. Section 805.14(2) abolishes the involuntary nonsuit, and a motion for one is treated as a motion to dismiss.

What if I mislabel my motion, calling it a directed verdict motion when I meant judgment notwithstanding the verdict?

The court treats the motion as if it had been properly designated, rather than rejecting it on a labeling technicality.

Can I move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict even if I never moved for a directed verdict during trial?

Yes. Section 805.14(5)(e) says it is not necessary to move for a directed verdict or dismissal before the case is submitted to the jury in order to later move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or to change an answer.

Do I waive my right to a jury trial by moving for a directed verdict that gets denied?

No. Section 805.14(8) says a motion for directed verdict that is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury, even if all parties to the action moved for a directed verdict.

Amendment History

History: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 704 (1975); Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d vii (1975); 1975 c. 218; Sup. Ct. Order, 73 Wis. 2d xxxi (1986); Sup. Ct. Order, 118 Wis. 2d xiii (1984); Sup. Ct. Order, 141 Wis. 2d xiii (1987); 2005 a. 253; 2007 a. 97.

Source & verification. Section text and official notes are reproduced verbatim from the Wisconsin Statutes, published by the Wisconsin Legislature (Legislative Reference Bureau). Last verified July 15, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: directed verdict wisconsinjudgment notwithstanding the verdict wisconsinJNOV wisconsinJMOL wisconsinmotion to change answer wisconsinjudgment as a matter of law wisconsin