Wisconsin Senate Bill SB226

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/25/25
• Refer: 4/25/25
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to create 801.50 (3c) and 801.50 (3g) of the statutes; Relating to: determination of where a defendant resides or does substantial business for purposes of venue.

Summary

SB 226 would change Wisconsin civil venue rules by narrowing how courts determine whether a county is a proper venue based on where a defendant “resides” or “does substantial business.” Under current law, venue may be proper in the county where a defendant resides or does substantial business, among other options. This bill would require courts to ignore the presence of certain joined parties when making that venue determination, specifically parties joined under permissive or necessary joinder rules and insurers joined under the insurance-joinder statute. The bill also creates a special venue rule for business entities. A corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity would be deemed to reside only in its place of incorporation or organization, and would be deemed to do substantial business only in the county of its principal place of business. In effect, the bill would make venue tied more tightly to a business defendant’s formal home and main operations, rather than to broader business activity or the presence of joined parties in a case.

Impact

If enacted, SB 226 would amend Wisconsin Statutes section 801.50 by adding new subsections governing venue in civil actions and special proceedings. It would limit plaintiffs’ ability to establish venue based on joined parties and would restrict venue against business entities to the county of incorporation/organization or principal place of business. The practical effect would be to reduce forum selection options in some civil cases and likely shift more cases into counties more closely connected to the primary defendant.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript debate or recorded votes, so there is no detailed public discussion to gauge support or opposition. The bill was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, but it ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears aimed at tightening venue rules, a change that typically appeals to defendants and business interests but may be viewed skeptically by plaintiffs’ attorneys and others who favor broader venue choices.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on venue based on joined parties and insurers. Opponents could argue that excluding necessary or permissive parties from the venue analysis makes it harder to litigate related claims together and may burden plaintiffs by forcing suit in less convenient counties. Supporters would likely contend that venue should be determined by the primary defendant’s true home forum and principal operations, preventing strategic joinder from being used to manufacture venue in a preferred county. The business-entity rule may also be controversial because it narrows the meaning of “does substantial business,” especially for companies with statewide operations.