JoAnne Kloppenburg

Presiding Judge, District IV—Madison (until August 2025)

Career History:
Appellate Judge, District IV Court of Appeals (2012-present)
Assistant Attorney General, Wisconsin Department of Justice (1989-2012)
Director, Environmental Protection Unit (1993-2003)
Adjunct Faculty, University of Wisconsin Law School, Civil Procedure (1990, 1992)
Law Clerk, Chief Judge Barbara Crabb, Western District of Wisconsin (1988-1989)
Legal Writing Teaching Assistant, University of Wisconsin Law School (1986-1988)
Associate Dean, Wells College (1983-1984)
Registrar, Cornell Business School (1981-1983)
Director, Tompkins-Schuyler Counties WIC Program (1980-1981)
Peace Corps Volunteer, Botswana (1976-1979)

To read the full official biography, click here. Source: wicourts.gov

About

About Judge Kloppenburg.

JoAnne F. Kloppenburg is a judge on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals — District IV, where she has served since 2012. She served as Presiding Judge of District IV until August 2025. District IV covers Madison and the surrounding southern and western counties of Wisconsin.

Before joining the Court of Appeals, Kloppenburg served as an Assistant Attorney General with the Wisconsin Department of Justice for 23 years, including a decade as director of the agency's Environmental Protection Unit. Earlier in her career, she taught civil procedure at the University of Wisconsin Law School as adjunct faculty, served as a law clerk to Chief Judge Barbara Crabb of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, and worked in higher-education administration at Wells College and Cornell University. She also served in the Peace Corps.

Kloppenburg was first elected to the Court of Appeals in 2012 and has run for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court twice.

Featured Opinions

Notable opinions.

State v. VanderGalien

Authored the majority. A criminal case where Kloppenburg honestly engaged with a prior precedent (Luedtke) rather than dodging it—distinguishing the earlier case on the facts and applying a less-demanding test that favored the government here. The kind of candid precedent work the system depends on.

A driver had cocaine in his system and crashed into other cars, killing one person. Wisconsin law makes it a crime to drive with any amount of certain drugs in your blood—even tiny amounts that are no longer making you impaired. The defendant argued the law was unfair. An older case from another district had similar facts. Kloppenburg worked through the older case carefully, explained why this case was different, and applied the test the law required—even though it favored the government. That is honest, careful precedent work.

Jahimiak v. Jahimiak

Authored the majority. A first-of-its-kind family-law ruling on whether a 60-day filing deadline is "mandatory" or "directory." Kloppenburg held it was directory—meaning courts can excuse a party who blows it. The legislature wrote a deadline; the court read flexibility into it. The rule now binds the entire Court of Appeals.

A divorce case had a 60-day filing deadline. The legislature wrote it into the law. The case asked whether courts can forgive someone who misses the deadline. Kloppenburg said yes. She called the deadline "directory" instead of "mandatory"—court-speak for "courts can excuse it." The legislature wrote a hard line. The court read flexibility into it. The new rule now binds every Wisconsin appeals court. Whether the result helps or hurts depends on which side of the deadline you are on, but the method shifts power from the legislature to judges.

Badgerland v. Federated; Sierra Club v. DNR; State v. Wilhite; State v. Bell

Authored the majorities. Insurance-contract law, environmental permitting, a constitutional challenge, and criminal procedure—spanning the full range of District IV's docket. Workmanlike across the board, with no single opinion staking out a distinctive doctrinal position.

Four ordinary cases covering insurance contracts, environmental rules, a constitutional claim, and criminal procedure. None of them break new ground. Each one applies established law to the facts. That is what most appeals work looks like. None of these will be in a textbook, but they all keep the docket moving.