Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (2026)

Commencement of action

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
801.02801.02Commencement of action.
801.02(1)(1)A civil action in which a personal judgment is sought is commenced as to any defendant when a summons and a complaint naming the person as defendant are filed with the court, provided service of an authenticated copy of the summons and of the complaint is made upon the defendant under this chapter within 90 days after filing.
801.02(2)(2)A civil action in which only an in rem or quasi in rem judgment is sought is commenced as to any defendant when a summons and a complaint are filed with the court, provided service of an authenticated copy of the summons and of either the complaint or a notice of object of action under s. 801.12 is made upon the defendant under this chapter within 90 days after filing.
801.02(3)(3)The original summons and complaint shall be filed together. The authenticated copies shall be served together except:
801.02(3)(a)(a) In actions in which a personal judgment is sought, if the summons is served by publication, only the summons need be published, but a copy of the complaint shall be mailed with a copy of the summons as required by s. 801.11, and;
Loading...
Loading...
× Details for
PDF view
Link (Permanent link)
Bookmark this location
View toggle
Go to top of document

Search in this chapter
Search in this section
Search in this agency
Search in this chapter group
Search in this chapter
Search in this section
Cross references for section
Acts affecting this section
References to this
1970 Statutes Annotations
Appellate Court Citations
Administrative Code Index

Reference lines
Clear highlighting
801.02(3)(b)(b) In actions in which only an in rem or quasi in rem judgment is sought, the summons may be accompanied by a notice of object of action pursuant to s. 801.12 in lieu of a copy of the complaint and, when the summons is served by publication, only the summons need be published, but a copy of the complaint or notice of object of action shall be mailed with the copy of the summons as required by s. 801.12.
801.02(4)(4)No service shall be made under sub. (3) until the action has been commenced in accordance with sub. (1) or (2).
801.02(5)(5)An action seeking a remedy available by certiorari, quo warranto, habeas corpus, mandamus or prohibition may be commenced under sub. (1), by service of an appropriate original writ on the defendant named in the writ if a copy of the writ is filed forthwith, or by filing a complaint demanding and specifying the remedy, if service of an authenticated copy of the complaint and of an order signed by the judge of the court in which the complaint is filed is made upon the defendant under this chapter within the time period specified in the order. The order may specify a time period shorter than that allowed by s. 802.06 for filing an answer or other responsive pleading.
801.02(6)(6)Fees payable upon commencement of a civil action shall be paid to the clerk at the time of filing.
801.02(7)(7)
801.02(7)(a)(a) In this subsection:
801.02(7)(a)1.1. “Correctional institution” means any state or local facility that incarcerates or detains any adult accused of, charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for any crime. A correctional institution includes a Type 1 prison, as defined in s. 301.01 (5), a Type 2 prison, as defined in s. 301.01 (6), a county jail and a house of correction.
801.02(7)(a)2.2. “Prisoner” means any person who is incarcerated, imprisoned or otherwise detained in a correctional institution or who is arrested or otherwise detained by a law enforcement officer. “Prisoner” does not include any of the following:
801.02(7)(a)2.a.a. A person committed under ch. 980.
801.02(7)(a)2.b.b. A person bringing an action seeking relief from a judgment terminating parental rights.
801.02(7)(a)2.c.c. A person bringing an action seeking relief from a judgment of conviction or a sentence of a court, including an action for an extraordinary writ or a supervisory writ seeking relief from a judgment of conviction or a sentence of a court or an action under s. 809.30, 809.40, 973.19, 974.06 or 974.07.
801.02(7)(a)2.d.d. A person bringing an action under s. 809.50 seeking relief from an order or judgment not appealable as of right that was entered in a proceeding under ch. 980 or in a case specified under s. 809.30 or 809.40.
801.02(7)(a)2.e.e. A person who is not serving a sentence for the conviction of a crime but who is detained, admitted or committed under ch. 51 or 55 or s. 971.14 (2) or (5).
801.02(7)(a)3.3. “Prison or jail conditions” means any matter related to the conditions of confinement or to the effects of actions by government officers, employees or agents on the lives of prisoners.
801.02(7)(b)(b) No prisoner may commence a civil action or special proceeding, including a petition for a common law writ of certiorari, with respect to the prison or jail conditions in the facility in which he or she is or has been incarcerated, imprisoned or detained until the person has exhausted all available administrative remedies that the department of corrections has promulgated by rule or, in the case of prisoners not in the custody of the department of corrections, that the sheriff, superintendent or other keeper of a jail or house of correction has reduced to writing and provided reasonable notice of to the prisoners.
801.02(7)(bm)(bm) A prisoner commencing an action or special proceeding shall first comply with the provisions of s. 893.80 or 893.82 unless one of the following applies:
801.02(7)(bm)1.1. The prisoner is filing a petition for a common law writ of certiorari.
801.02(7)(bm)2.2. The prisoner is commencing an action seeking injunctive relief and the court finds that there is a substantial risk to the prisoner’s health or safety.
801.02(7)(c)(c) At the time of filing the initial pleading to commence an action or special proceeding, including a petition for a common law writ of certiorari, related to prison or jail conditions, a prisoner shall include, as part of the initial pleading, documentation showing that he or she has exhausted all available administrative remedies. The documentation shall include copies of all of the written materials that he or she provided to the administrative agency as part of the administrative proceeding and all of the written materials the administrative agency provided to him or her related to that administrative proceeding. The documentation shall also include all written materials included as part of any administrative appeal. The court shall deny a prisoner’s request to proceed without the prepayment of fees and costs under s. 814.29 (1m) if the prisoner fails to comply with this paragraph or if the prisoner has failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies.
801.02(7)(d)(d) If the prisoner seeks leave to proceed without giving security for costs or without the payment of any service or fee under s. 814.29, the court shall dismiss any action or special proceeding, including a petition for a common law writ of certiorari, commenced by any prisoner if that prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while he or she was incarcerated, imprisoned, confined or detained in a jail or prison, brought an appeal, writ of error, action or special proceeding, including a petition for a common law writ of certiorari, that was dismissed by a state or federal court for any of the reasons listed in s. 802.05 (4) (b) 1. to 4. The court may permit a prisoner to commence the action or special proceeding, notwithstanding this paragraph, if the court determines that the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
801.02 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 589 (1975); 1975 c. 218; 1981 c. 289, 317; 1995 a. 27; 1997 a. 133, 187; 2001 a. 16; Sup. Ct. Order No. 03-06A, 2005 WI 86, 280 Wis. 2d xiii; 2007 a. 20; 2015 a. 55.
801.02 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1981: Sub. (1) is amended to allow an action seeking an extraordinary remedy to be commenced in the same manner as any other civil action. Sub. (5) allows the additional option of using an order to shorten the time for filing a response to the complaint in lieu of a summons. This option is for the emergency situation when the case may be moot before a response would be filed. The order serves the same purpose as the alternative writ and the order to show cause used to initiate the action under writ procedures. In all other matters of procedure, the rules of civil procedure govern to the extent applicable. Sub. (5) applies only to procedure in the circuit court. In seeking an extraordinary remedy in the supreme court or court of appeals, s. 809.51, stats., should be followed. [Bill 613-A]
801.02 AnnotationPursuant to sub. (5), a certiorari action may be commenced in three ways: 1) under sub. (1) by summons and complaint; 2) by service of an appropriate writ; or 3) by filing a complaint and serving it along with an order, in lieu of a summons, upon the defendant. Nickel River Investments v. City of La Crosse Review Board, 156 Wis. 2d 429, 457 N.W.2d 333 (Ct. App. 1990). See also Tobler v. Door County, 158 Wis. 2d 19, 461 N.W.2d 775 (1990).
801.02 AnnotationSetting forth the test to determine whether defects in summons and complaints are fatal. The trial court has jurisdiction if the error is technical and the complainant can show that the defendant is not prejudiced. When the error is fundamental, no jurisdiction may attach. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 167 Wis. 2d 524, 481 N.W.2d 629 (1992).
801.02 AnnotationA summons that designated an attorney to receive the defendant’s answer, but was signed by the plaintiff, was technically defective and did not deprive the court of personal jurisdiction. Dungan v. County of Pierce, 170 Wis. 2d 89, 486 N.W.2d 579 (Ct. App. 1992).
801.02 AnnotationSub. (1) applies to the service of amended complaints. Archambault v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 205 Wis. 2d 400, 556 N.W.2d 392 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-3266.
801.02 AnnotationA summons served by publication under sub. (3) must be authenticated. When an authenticated copy of the summons was published, but an unauthenticated copy was mailed, together with authenticated copies of the original summons and complaint, there was a technical, but no fundamental, error. Burnett v. Hill, 207 Wis. 2d 110, 557 N.W.2d 800 (1997), 94-2011.
801.02 AnnotationAn inmate challenging the calculation of the inmate’s mandatory release date is not seeking relief from a judgment of conviction or a sentence of a court, does not fall within sub. (7) (a) 2. c., and is therefore a “prisoner” within the meaning of sub. (7) who must comply with the requirements of that subsection. State ex rel. Stinson v. Morgan, 226 Wis. 2d 100, 593 N.W.2d 924 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2971.
801.02 AnnotationFor a paper to be filed, it must be properly deposited with the clerk under s. 59.40 (2). “Properly” connotes complying with formality or correctness, but is not susceptible to exact definition. The delivery of papers to the clerk at the clerk’s home after business hours was too far removed from legislative guidelines to be considered properly deposited. Granado v. Sentry Insurance, 228 Wis. 2d 794, 599 N.W.2d 62 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-3675.
801.02 AnnotationThe sub. (7) (d) dismissals rule does not apply when a prisoner has sufficient prison trust funds to pay the filing fee in full. A court order under s. 814.29 (1m) (d) is required to release the funds. State ex rel. Coleman v. Sullivan, 229 Wis. 2d 804, 601 N.W.2d 335 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2599.
801.02 AnnotationThe definition of “correctional institution” in sub. (7) (a) 1. does not include an out-of-state county jail, and therefore a Wisconsin inmate sent to such a jail is not a prisoner under sub. (7) (a) 2. State ex rel. Speener v. Gudmanson, 2000 WI App 78, 234 Wis. 2d 461, 610 N.W.2d 136, 99-0568.
801.02 AnnotationSub. (7) (d), as applied to the petitioner, did not violate the constitutional guarantees of access to the courts or equal protection. State ex rel. Khan v. Sullivan, 2000 WI App 109, 235 Wis. 2d 260, 613 N.W.2d 203, 99-2102.
801.02 AnnotationA petitioner who seeks to overturn the revocation of probation by a writ of certiorari is a prisoner under sub. (7) (a) 2. A probation revocation is not analogous to a judgment of conviction or a sentence, and a writ of certiorari challenging revocation is not subject to the exclusion under sub. (7) (a) 2. c. State ex rel. Cramer v. Court of Appeals, 2000 WI 86, 236 Wis. 2d 473, 613 N.W.2d 591, 99-1089.
801.02 AnnotationAn appeal is not included in “any action or special proceeding” that is subject to dismissal under sub. (7) (d). State ex rel. Adell v. Smith, 2000 WI App 188, 238 Wis. 2d 655, 618 N.W.2d 208, 00-0070.
801.02 AnnotationFormer sub. (7), 1995 stats., did not apply to a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking judicial review of a probation revocation by the Department of Administration. State ex rel. Mentek v. Schwarz, 2001 WI 32, 242 Wis. 2d 94, 624 N.W.2d 150, 99-0182.
801.02 AnnotationThe requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies under sub. (7) (b) is applicable to a case advancing a constitutional challenge. There is no common law futility exception. This section also controls over s. 227.40, which in some cases allows obtaining a declaratory judgment without exhausting all administrative remedies. State ex rel. Hensley v. Endicott, 2001 WI 105, 245 Wis. 2d 607, 629 N.W.2d 686, 00-0076.
801.02 AnnotationNeither sub. (1) nor s. 801.11 allows a defendant who is being sued in a dual capacity, personally and officially, to be served in only one of those capacities. When an officer of a company received service on behalf of the company, receiving one copy of a summons and complaint, but was not served as an individual, although named individually, there was no jurisdiction over the defendant as an individual. Useni v. Boudron, 2003 WI App 98, 264 Wis. 2d 783, 662 N.W.2d 672, 02-1475.
801.02 AnnotationSub. (7) (d) plainly provides that a dismissal must be of an appeal, writ of error, action, or special proceeding to be counted as a dismissal, and a partial dismissal—i.e., the dismissal of a claim or claims from a suit that proceeds on one or more viable claims—is not the dismissal of an action. Thus, a partial dismissal cannot be counted as dismissal of an action under sub. (7) (d). State ex rel. Henderson v. Raemisch, 2010 WI App 114, 329 Wis. 2d 109, 790 N.W.2d 242, 09-1850.
801.02 AnnotationWhen the complaint served on the defendant was unsigned, even though it was nonetheless authenticated by the clerk of courts, and the complaint on file with the trial court was signed, the filing of the signed summons and complaint properly commenced the lawsuit, and the authenticated copy served on the defendant gave the defendant sufficient notice to that effect. Mahoney v. Menard Inc., 2011 WI App 128, 337 Wis. 2d 170, 805 N.W.2d 728, 10-1637.
801.02 AnnotationA plaintiff need not demonstrate the existence of an emergency in order to initiate a certiorari action using the complaint and order method under sub. (5). Koenig v. Pierce County Department of Human Services, 2016 WI App 23, 367 Wis. 2d 633, 877 N.W.2d 632, 15-0410.
801.02 AnnotationUnder sub. (5), it is the filing of a complaint that matters for purposes of determining whether a certiorari action is commenced within the applicable time limitation, not the obtaining and serving of an order. Koenig v. Pierce County Department of Human Services, 2016 WI App 23, 367 Wis. 2d 633, 877 N.W.2d 632, 15-0410.
801.02 AnnotationFiling and serving a summons and complaint is a permissible way to commence a certiorari action under sub. (5). The complaint and summons method requires a timely response. State ex rel. Kurtzweil v. Sawyer County Zoning Board of Appeals, 2023 WI App 43, 409 Wis. 2d 77, 995 N.W.2d 286, 22-1577.
801.02 AnnotationSub. (7) (c) and (d) does not establish that denial of a prepayment waiver is the exclusive adverse consequence when a prisoner fails to timely submit all administrative-process documents. Instead, the last sentence of sub. (7) (d) merely identifies dismissal of a petition for prepayment waiver as one consequence because additional remedies are understood from context. Mitchell v. Buesgen, 2024 WI App 14, 411 Wis. 2d 269, 4 N.W.3d 596, 22-1076.
801.02 AnnotationThe combined effects of sub. (7) (c) and s. 893.735 (2) and (3) is that the administrative-process documents expansively described in sub. (7) (c) are required to timely pursue a prepayment waiver, and they are also required under s. 893.735 to timely commence a writ action. Mitchell v. Buesgen, 2024 WI App 14, 411 Wis. 2d 269, 4 N.W.3d 596, 22-1076.
801.02 AnnotationTimely Service Abroad in Diversity Suits. La Fave. Wis. Law. Nov. 2000.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 199 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Cramer v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals
State Ex Rel. Cramer v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2000 WI 86 (Wis. 2000). · cites it 95× “The statutory definition of "prisoner" as it applies to the PLRA appears in Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (7)(a)2 and excludes "[a] person bringing an action seeking relief from a judgment of conviction or a sentence of a court, including an action for an extraordinary writ or a…”
Koenig v. Pierce Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 35× “Koenig then commenced the instant certio-rari action, using the "complaint and order" procedure set forth in Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (5). On March 7, 2014, she filed a "Complaint for Judicial Review by Certio-rari Pursuant to Wis.”
State Ex Rel. Hensley v. Endicott, 2001 WI 105 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 28× “Accordingly, there is no common law futility exception to the PLRA.”
Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 2012 WI 31 (Wis. 2012). · cites it 20× “2 as a defendant in his summons and complaint, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 801.02 (1) and 801.09(1). Therefore, the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over Cintas No.”
State Ex Rel. Mentek v. Schwarz, 2001 WI 32 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 34× “The circuit court dismissed the petition on the grounds that Mentek failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the petition as required by Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (7)(1995-96). [1] The court of appeals also concluded *97 that Mentek's administrative remedies were…”
State Ex Rel. L'Minggio v. Gamble, 2003 WI 82 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 18× “[2] The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of L'Minggio's action, but on the grounds that L'Minggio failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (7)(b) and Wis. Admin.”
Burnett v. Hill, 557 N.W.2d 800 (Wis. 1997). · cites it 30× “2d 629 (1992), that where there is a failure to comply with Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (1), that failure "consti *117 tutes a fundamental error which necessarily precludes personal jurisdiction regardless of the presence or absence of prejudice.”
State ex rel. Henderson v. Raemisch, 2010 WI App 114 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 41× “The issue presented in this case is whether the partial dismissal of a prisoner lawsuit counts as a "strike" for purposes of the "three-strike" provision contained in Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (7)(d) (2007-08) 1 of the Wisconsin Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).”
Hagen v. City of Milwaukee Emp.'s Ret. Sys. Annuity & Pension Bd., 2003 WI 56 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 11× “" Hagen did not further attempt to effectuate service on MERS, even though he had 41 days left in which to do so, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (1). ¶ 7. On September 10, 2001, MERS moved for summary judgment, again asserting the absence of *118 personal jurisdiction due to…”
Split Rock Hardwoods, Inc. v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., 2002 WI 66 (Wis. 2002). · cites it 8× “Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (1) (1999-2000). [1] ¶ 2.”
State Ex Rel. Tayr Kilaab Al Ghashiyah v. Sullivan, 2000 WI App 109 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 18× “Khan objects to the respondents' motion on the grounds that Wis. Stat. §§ 801.02 (7)(d) and 814.29(lm)(c), commonly referred to as "three strikes and you're out" provisions, are unconstitutional.”
Thomas D. Nowell v. City of Wausau, 2013 WI 88 (Wis. 2013). · cites it 7× “" This requirement is not inconsistent with certiorari review because statutes, most notably Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (5), specifically permit the procedures for civil actions to be applied to certiorari proceedings.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(1) — 67 cases
Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 481 N.W.2d 629 (Wis. 1992).
Gaddis v. LaCrosse Prods., Inc., 542 N.W.2d 454 (Wis. 1996).
Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 2012 WI 31 (Wis. 2012). “2 as a defendant in his summons and complaint, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 801.02 (1) and 801.09(1). Therefore, the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over Cintas No.”
Schlumpf v. Yellick, 288 N.W.2d 834 (Wis. 1980).
McMillan-Warner Mut. Ins. v. Kauffman, 465 N.W.2d 201 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(2) — 4 cases
State v. Schmitt, 2012 WI App 121 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Erotomic, 275 N.W.2d 160 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979).
Scovel v. Habeck, 100 F.R.D. 81 (E.D. Wis. 1983).
State v. John Dean Pleuss (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(3) — 2 cases
Burnett v. Hill, 544 N.W.2d 580 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
Amanda Craven v. JEK Prop. Mgmt. LLC (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(3)(a) — 2 cases
Burnett v. Hill, 557 N.W.2d 800 (Wis. 1997). “2d 629 (1992), that where there is a failure to comply with Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (1), that failure "consti *117 tutes a fundamental error which necessarily precludes personal jurisdiction regardless of the presence or absence of prejudice.”
Burnett v. Hill, 544 N.W.2d 580 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(4) — 2 cases
Mahoney v. Menard Inc., 2011 WI App 128 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(5) — 17 cases
Koenig v. Pierce Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “Koenig then commenced the instant certio-rari action, using the "complaint and order" procedure set forth in Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (5). On March 7, 2014, she filed a "Complaint for Judicial Review by Certio-rari Pursuant to Wis.”
Tobler v. Door Cnty., 461 N.W.2d 775 (Wis. 1990).
Nickel River Investments v. City of La Crosse Bd. of Review, 457 N.W.2d 333 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).
State Ex Rel. Jones v. Gerhardstein, 416 N.W.2d 883 (Wis. 1987).
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(6) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Steldt v. McCaughtry, 2000 WI App 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
State Ex Rel. Staples v. Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 387 N.W.2d 118 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(7) — 12 cases
State Ex Rel. Mentek v. Schwarz, 2000 WI App 96 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
State Ex Rel. Mentek v. Schwarz, 2001 WI 32 (Wis. 2001). “The circuit court dismissed the petition on the grounds that Mentek failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the petition as required by Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (7)(1995-96). [1] The court of appeals also concluded *97 that Mentek's administrative remedies were…”
Moore v. Stahowiak, 569 N.W.2d 711 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
State Ex Rel. Smith v. McCaughtry, 586 N.W.2d 63 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
State Ex Rel. Frasch v. Cooke, 592 N.W.2d 304 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(7)(a) — 14 cases
State Ex Rel. Cramer v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2000 WI 86 (Wis. 2000). “The statutory definition of "prisoner" as it applies to the PLRA appears in Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (7)(a)2 and excludes "[a] person bringing an action seeking relief from a judgment of conviction or a sentence of a court, including an action for an extraordinary writ or a…”
State Ex Rel. Speener v. Gudmanson, 2000 WI App 78 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
Spence v. Cooke, 587 N.W.2d 904 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Dentici, 2002 WI App 77 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
State Ex Rel. Tayr Kilaab Al Ghashiyah v. Sullivan, 2000 WI App 109 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “Khan objects to the respondents' motion on the grounds that Wis. Stat. §§ 801.02 (7)(d) and 814.29(lm)(c), commonly referred to as "three strikes and you're out" provisions, are unconstitutional.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(7)(b) — 9 cases
State Ex Rel. L'Minggio v. Gamble, 2003 WI 82 (Wis. 2003). “[2] The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of L'Minggio's action, but on the grounds that L'Minggio failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (7)(b) and Wis. Admin.”
State Ex Rel. Mentek v. Schwarz, 2001 WI 32 (Wis. 2001). “The circuit court dismissed the petition on the grounds that Mentek failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the petition as required by Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (7)(1995-96). [1] The court of appeals also concluded *97 that Mentek's administrative remedies were…”
Jackson v. Buchler, 2010 WI 135 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Williams, 909 N.W.2d 177 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
State Ex Rel. Freeman v. Berge, 2002 WI App 213 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(7)(c) — 5 cases
State Ex Rel. Shimkus v. Sondalle, 2000 WI App 238 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
State Ex Rel. Tyler v. Bett, 2002 WI App 234 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
State Ex Rel. Locklear v. Schwarz, 2001 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
Artillis Mitchell v. Chris S. Buesgen, 2024 WI App 14 (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
State Ex Rel. Schatz v. McCaughtry, 2002 WI App 167 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(7)(d) — 13 cases
State Ex Rel. Tayr Kilaab Al Ghashiyah v. Sullivan, 2000 WI App 109 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “Khan objects to the respondents' motion on the grounds that Wis. Stat. §§ 801.02 (7)(d) and 814.29(lm)(c), commonly referred to as "three strikes and you're out" provisions, are unconstitutional.”
State Ex Rel. Cramer v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2000 WI 86 (Wis. 2000). “The statutory definition of "prisoner" as it applies to the PLRA appears in Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (7)(a)2 and excludes "[a] person bringing an action seeking relief from a judgment of conviction or a sentence of a court, including an action for an extraordinary writ or a…”
State ex rel. Henderson v. Raemisch, 2010 WI App 114 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “The issue presented in this case is whether the partial dismissal of a prisoner lawsuit counts as a "strike" for purposes of the "three-strike" provision contained in Wis. Stat. § 801.02 (7)(d) (2007-08) 1 of the Wisconsin Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).”
State Ex Rel. Locklear v. Schwarz, 2001 WI App 74 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
State Ex Rel. Adell v. Smith, 2000 WI App 188 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.