Courts apply the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens when necessary to prevent the imposition of an inconvenient jurisdiction on a litigant. A trial court may, in its discretion, dismiss a case even when contacts between the defendant and the forum state exist that may confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, if the case itself has no significant connection to the forum.

A resident plaintiff’s forum choice deserves deference, all else being more or less equal, but that choice does not foreclose a defendant from demonstrating that the private and public interest factors favor dismissal when another forum’s interests predominate.

In Wisconsin, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it determines that the forum chosen by the plaintiff is highly inconvenient for the defendant or witnesses, or if another forum is more appropriate for resolving the dispute. This doctrine is applied even when the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court will consider various private and public interest factors, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses, the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses, and other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. While the plaintiff's choice of forum is given deference, especially if the plaintiff is a resident of the forum state, this preference can be overridden if the defendant can show that the balance of factors strongly favors another forum. The goal is to ensure that the litigation proceeds in the location that is most convenient and fair for all parties involved and that serves the interests of justice.