Notes of Decisions
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.”
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…”
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
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.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(2) — 4 cases
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(3) — 2 cases
— 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.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(4) — 2 cases
— 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.”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(6) — 2 cases
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(7) — 12 cases
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…”
— 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. 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…”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.02(7)(c) — 5 cases
— 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).”
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.