Where out-of-state defendant placed order in Wisconsin, but conducted no other activities in state, minimum contacts test was not satisfied. Lakeside Bridge & Steel v. Mountain State Const. 597 F (2d) 596 (1979).
New York corporation was subject to long-arm statute where agents of corporation made 2 visits to state in connection with business on which claim was based. Wisconsin Elec. Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Pennant Products, 619 F (2d) 676 (1980).
Wisconsin circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction over trust assets in Illinois, making removal to Wisconsin federal district court improper. Norton v. Bridges, 712 F (2d) 1156 (1983).
"Processed" under (4) (b) included distributor's purchase and sale of goods in normal course of distribution of those goods. Nelson By Carson v. Park Industries, Inc. 717 F (2d) 1120 (1983).
Buyer's inspection of goods before shipment from state was sufficient contact for jurisdiction. Afram Export Corp. v. Metallurgiki Halyps, S.A. 772 F (2d) 1358 (1985).
Jurisdiction in an action for misrepresentation in sale of a boat did not exist where the only contact was that the boat would be operated partly in Wisconsin and that the seller wrote a letter to the Wisconsin buyer confirming the already existing contract. McCalla v. A. J. Industries, Inc. 352 F Supp. 544.
Fact that a Virginia corporation was a distributor for a Wisconsin corporation in Virginia is not enough to justify action in Wisconsin. Watral v. Murphy Diesel Co. 358 F Supp. 968.
A Texas company which ordered a turbine from a Wisconsin manufacturer, and which sent representatives to Wisconsin twice, was subject to Wisconsin jurisdiction. Nordberg, etc. v. Hudson Eng. Corp. 361 F Supp. 903.
Action for injuries sustained by plaintiff while using machine manufactured by defendant in France and sold to plaintiff's employer was an action for personal injury based on breach of warranty and strict liability under (4) and (5) (c). Davis v. Mercier-Freres, 368 F Supp. 498.
Service upon nonresident's father at his residence was insufficient for exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident in diversity case, despite claimed actual notice, where no attempt was made to comply with 345.09. Chilcote v. Shertzer, 372 F Supp. 86.
Court had jurisdiction over insurer under (1) (d) based on settlement negotiations conducted by adjuster and insurer was estopped from asserting its no-action clause. Kirchen v. Orth, 390 F Supp. 313.
Court had in-personam jurisdiction by virtue of (5) (b), (e) where defendant made initial contact with plaintiff, sent its president to Milwaukee to solicit plaintiff's participation in the transaction, delivered documentation of title to the subject property to plaintiff in Milwaukee, excepted payment for such property in Milwaukee and executed lease agreement in Milwaukee. Ridge Leasing Corp. v. Monarch Royalty, Inc. 392 F Supp. 573.
To determine whether a particular nonresident is "doing business" within this state the court must consider the party's overall activities within the state, past and present, not at some fixed point in time. Modern Cycle Sales, Inc. v. Burkhardt-Larson Co. 395 F Supp. 587.
Actions of out-of-state police officials in continuously soliciting plaintiff's arrest by means of "fugitive from justice notice" entered into FBI National Crime Information Center computer data bank, in representing to Wisconsin authorities that extradition was desired and requesting plaintiff be arrested constituted sufficient minimum contact with Wisconsin to permit exercise of personal jurisdiction. Maney v. Ratcliff, 399 F Supp. 760.
Infrequent use of Wisconsin roads by Idaho trucking corporation did not constitute "continuous and systematic" activity necessary to confer jurisdiction under this section. Ladwig v. Trucks Ins. Exch. 498 F Supp. 161 (1980).
Foreign corporation is not subject to jurisdiction in Wisconsin when sole basis for assertion of jurisdiction was unilateral activity of resident plaintiff. Jadair, Inc. v. Walt Keeler Co., Inc. 508 F Supp. 879 (1981).
In applying test under (1) (d), court looks to defendant's general contacts with forum state, not merely its contacts arising out of specific transaction at issue. Jadair v. Van Lott, Inc. 512 F Supp. 1141 (1981).
Visit by defendant's attorney to deliver checks in state was insufficient contact to confer jurisdiction under this section. Sed, Inc. v. Bohager/Goodhues, Inc. 538 F Supp. 196 (1982).
Contract for services distinguished from contract for goods. L.B. Sales Corp. v. Dial Mfg., Inc. 593 F Supp. 290 (1984).
Single sale in state was insufficient contact to confer personal jurisdiction. Uni-Bond, LTD. v. Schultz, 607 F Supp. 1361 (1985).
This section is intended to reach to the full extent permissible under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Walworth Woodcraft v. Metro. Consol. Industries, 637 F Supp. 159 (E. D. Wis. 1986).
A parent-subsidiary relationship is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the parent for long-arm purposes so long as the subsidiary carries on sufficient activities in the state. Hayeland v. Jaques, 841 F Supp 630 (1994).
This section is intended to reach to the fullest extent allowed under the due process clause. Farby Glove & Mitten Co. v. Spitzer, 908 F Supp. 625 (1995).
State may not assert quasi in rem jurisdiction over an insurance company's contractual obligations to defend and indemnify its insured. 64 MLR 374 (1980).
Stacking the deck: Wisconsin's application of Leflar's choice-influencing considerations to torts choice-of-law cases. White. 1985 WLR 401.
Personal jurisdiction, grounds for without service of summons.
A court of this state having jurisdiction of the subject matter may, without a summons having been served upon a person, exercise jurisdiction in an action over a person with respect to any counterclaim asserted against that person in an action which the person has commenced in this state and also over any person who appears in the action and waives the defense of lack of jurisdiction over his or her person as provided in s. 802.06 (8)
. An appearance to contest the basis for in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction under s. 802.06 (2) (a) 3.
without seeking any other relief does not constitute an appearance within the meaning of this section.
Sup. Ct. Order, 67 W (2d) 585, 596 (1975); 1975 c. 218
; 1993 a. 213
Jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem, grounds for generally.
A court of this state having jurisdiction of the subject matter may exercise jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem on the grounds stated in this section. A judgment in rem or quasi in rem may affect the interests of a defendant in the status, property or thing acted upon only if a summons has been served upon the defendant pursuant to s. 801.12
. Jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem may be invoked in any of the following cases:
When the subject of the action is real or personal property in this state and the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, therein, or the relief demanded consists wholly or partially in excluding the defendant from any interest or lien therein. This subsection shall apply when any such defendant is unknown.
When the action is to foreclose, redeem from or satisfy a mortgage, claim or lien upon real estate within this state.
When the defendant has property within this state which has been attached or has a debtor within the state who has been garnisheed. Jurisdiction under this subsection may be independent of or supplementary to jurisdiction acquired under subs. (1)
When the action is to declare property within this state a public nuisance.
When the action is an action affecting the family under s. 767.02 (1) (a)
and when the residence requirements of s. 767.05 (1m)
have been met, a court having subject matter jurisdiction may exercise jurisdiction quasi in rem to determine questions of status if the respondent has been served under s. 801.11 (1)
Sup. Ct. Order, 67 W (2d) 585, 597 (1975), 758; 1977 c. 418
; 1979 c. 32
s. 92 (4)
; 1979 c. 352
; 1993 a. 213
This section requires that in rem actions under 161.555 must be commenced against person having interest in property seized under 161.55. State v. One 1973 Cadillac, 95 W (2d) 641, 291 NW (2d) 626 (Ct. App. 1980).
Minimum contacts standard for quasi in rem jurisdiction discussed. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 US 186.
Posting notice of eviction on apartment door did not satisfy minimum requirements of due process. Greene v. Lindsey, 456 US 444 (1982).
Objection to personal jurisdiction. 801.08(1)
All issues of fact and law raised by an objection to the court's jurisdiction over the person or property as provided by s. 802.06 (2)
shall be heard by the court without a jury in advance of any issue going to the merits of the case. If, after such a hearing on the objection, the court decides that it has jurisdiction, the case may proceed on the merits; if the court decides that it lacks jurisdiction, the defendant shall be given the relief required by such decision.
Factual determinations made by the court in determining the question of personal jurisdiction over the defendant shall not be binding on the parties in the trial of the action on the merits.
No guardian or guardian ad litem may, except as provided in this subsection, waive objection to jurisdiction over the person of the ward. If no objection to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the ward is raised pursuant to s. 802.06 (2)
, the service of an answer or motion by a guardian or guardian ad litem followed by a hearing or trial shall be equivalent to an appearance and waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the ward.
Sup. Ct. Order, 67 W (2d) 585, 598 (1975); 1979 c. 110
s. 60 (7)
; Sup. Ct. Order, 101 W (2d) xi.
Judicial Council Note, 1981: The last sentence of sub. (1) has been repealed because it erroneously implied that non-final orders deciding jurisdictional questions were appealable as of right. This has not been true since ch. 187, Laws of 1977 repealed s. 817.33 (3) (f), Wis. Stats. (1975) and created s. 808.03 (1), Wis. Stats. (1977). Heaton v. Independent Mortuary Corp., 97 Wis. 2d 379
, 294 N.W. 2d 15
(1980). [Re Order effective July 1, 1981]
Jurisdiction dispute may not be resolved on motion. Merco Distrib. Corp. v. O & R Engines, Inc. 71 W (2d) 792, 239 NW (2d) 97.
Order denying motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is appealable by permission under 808.03 (2). Heaton v. Independent Mortuary Corp. 97 W (2d) 379, 294 NW (2d) 15 (1980).
Order denying motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction under 801.08 (1) is not final order and is not appealable as of right under 808.03 (1). Grulkowski v. Dept. of Transp. 97 W (2d) 615, 294 NW (2d) 43 (Ct. App. 1980).
Trial court erred in denying plaintiff's request for evidentiary hearing; plaintiff has no burden to prove jurisdictional facts prior to hearing. Henderson v. Milex Products, Inc. 125 W (2d) 141, 370 NW (2d) 291 (Ct. App. 1985).
Conducting pretrial discovery does not constitute "going to the merits of the case" under sub. (1) and does not waive an objection raised under s. 802.06 (2). Honeycrest Farms v. Brave Harvestore Systems, 200 W (2d) 256, 546 NW (2d) 192 (Ct. App. 1996).
Summons, contents of.
The summons shall contain:
The title of the cause, specifying the name of the court in which the action is brought, the name of the county designated by the plaintiff as the place of trial, the standardized description of the case classification type and associated code number as approved by the director of state courts and the names and addresses of the parties to the action, plaintiff and defendant.
A direction to the defendant summoning and requiring defendant to serve upon the plaintiff's attorney, whose address shall be stated in the summons, either an answer to the complaint if a copy of the complaint is served with the summons or a demand for a copy of the complaint. The summons shall further direct the defendant to serve the answer or demand for a copy of the complaint:
Within 20 days, or within 45 days if the defendant is the state or an officer, agent, employe or agency of the state in an action or special proceeding brought within the purview of s. 893.82
, exclusive of the day of service, after the summons has been served personally upon the defendant or served by substitution personally upon another authorized to accept service of the summons for the defendant; or
Within 40 days after a date stated in the summons, exclusive of such date, if no such personal or substituted personal service has been made, and service is made by publication. The date so stated in the summons shall be the date of the first required publication.
A notice that in case of failure to serve an answer or demand for a copy of the complaint within the time fixed by sub. (2)
, judgment will be rendered against the defendant according to the demand of the complaint. The summons shall be subscribed with the handwritten signature of the plaintiff or attorney with the addition of the post-office address at which papers in the action may be served on the plaintiff by mail, plaintiff's or attorney's telephone number, and, if by an attorney, the attorney's state bar number, if any. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, the summons shall contain the name and address of the firm and shall be subscribed with the handwritten signature and state bar number, if any, of one attorney who is a member or associate of such firm. When the complaint is not served with the summons and the only relief sought is the recovery of money, whether upon tort or contract, there may, at the option of the plaintiff, be added at the foot a brief note specifying the sum to be demanded by the complaint.
There may be as many authenticated copies of the summons and the complaint issued to the plaintiff or counsel as are needed for the purpose of effecting service on the defendant. Authentication shall be accomplished by the clerk's placing a filing stamp indicating the case number on each copy of the summons and the complaint.
Sup. Ct. Order, 67 W (2d) 585, 598 (1975); Sup. Ct. Order, 67 W (2d) viii; 1975 c. 218
; Sup. Ct. Order, 112 W (2d) xi; Sup. Ct. Order, 171 W (2d) xxv; 1993 a. 365
See s. 802.06 (1)
for provision giving the state 45 days to serve an answer.
Judicial Council Note, 1983: Sub. (2) (a) is amended by applying the extended response time for state officers and agencies to state agents and employes as well. The extended time is intended to allow investigation of the claim by the department of justice to determine whether representation of the defendant by the department is warranted under s. 893.82 or 895.46, Stats. [Re Order effective July 1, 1983]
See note to 805.18, citing Canadian Pac. Ltd. v. Omark-Prentice Hydraulics, 86 W (2d) 369, 272 NW (2d) 407 (Ct. App. 1978).
Failure to name party in summons means court has no authority over that party regarding the case; prejudice need not be shown. Bulik v. Arrow Realty, Inc., 148 W (2d) 441, 434 NW (2d) 853 (Ct. App. 1988).
An unsigned summons served with a signed complaint is a technical defect which in the absence of prejudice does not deny the trial court personal jurisdiction. Gaddis v. LaCrosse Products, Inc. 198 W (2d) 396, 542 NW (2d) 454 (1996).
The summons shall be substantially in one of the forms specified in subs. (1)
. The applicable form depends on the type of service and on whether a complaint is served with the summons, in accordance with s. 801.09
. The forms are:
(1) Personal service; complaint attached.
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT : .... COUNTY
City, State Zip Code File No. ....
vs. S U M M O N S
Address .... (Case Classification Type): .... (Code No.)
City, State Zip Code
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, To each person named above as a Defendant:
You are hereby notified that the Plaintiff named above has filed a lawsuit or other legal action against you. The complaint, which is attached, states the nature and basis of the legal action.
Within (20) (45) days of receiving this summons, you must respond with a written answer, as that term is used in chapter 802 of the Wisconsin Statutes, to the complaint. The court may reject or disregard an answer that does not follow the requirements of the statutes. The answer must be sent or delivered to the court, whose address is ...., and to ...., Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is ..... You may have an attorney help or represent you.
If you do not provide a proper answer within (20) (45) days, the court may grant judgment against you for the award of money or other legal action requested in the complaint, and you may lose your right to object to anything that is or may be incorrect in the complaint. A judgment may be enforced as provided by law. A judgment awarding money may become a lien against any real estate you own now or in the future, and may also be enforced by garnishment or seizure of property.
Dated: ...., 19..
Signed: .... ....
A. B., Plaintiff
E. F., Plaintiff's Attorney
State Bar No.: ....
City, State Zip Code: ....
Phone No: ....
(2) Personal service; no complaint attached.