Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 801 — CIVIL PROCEDURE — COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION AND VENUE
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 801.08 (2026)

Objection to personal jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
801.08801.08 Objection to personal jurisdiction.
801.08(1)(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.
801.08(2)(2) 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.
801.08(3)(3) 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.
801.08 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 598 (1975); 1979 c. 110 s. 60 (7); Sup. Ct. Order, 101 Wis. 2d xi.
801.08 NoteJudicial 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 (1) has been repealed because it erroneously implied that non-final orders deciding jurisdictional questions were appealable as of right. This has not been true since ch. 187, Laws of 1977 repealed s. 817.33 (3) (f), Wis.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]
801.08 AnnotationA jurisdiction dispute may not be resolved on motion. Merco Distributing Corp. v. O&R Engines, Inc., 71 Wis. 2d 792, 239 N.W.2d 97 (1976).
801.08 AnnotationAn order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is appealable by permission under s. 808.03 (2). Heaton v. Independent Mortuary Corp., 97 Wis. 2d 379, 294 N.W.2d 15 (1980).
801.08 AnnotationAn order denying a motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction under sub. (1) is not a final order and is not appealable as of right under s. 808.03 (1). Grulkowski v. DOT, 97 Wis. 2d 615, 294 N.W.2d 43 (Ct. App. 1980).
801.08 AnnotationThe trial court erred in denying the plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing. The plaintiff has no burden to prove jurisdictional facts prior to a hearing. Henderson v. Milex Products, Inc., 125 Wis. 2d 141, 370 N.W.2d 291 (Ct. App. 1985).
801.08 AnnotationConducting 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, Inc. v. Brave Harvestore Systems, Inc., 200 Wis. 2d 256, 546 N.W.2d 192 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1789.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Heaton v. Indep. Mortuary Corp., 294 N.W.2d 15 (Wis. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Heaton v. Indep. Mortuary Corp., 294 N.W.2d 15 (Wis. 1980). · cites it 20× “The defendant’s position is that an order entered pursuant to sec. 801.08, Stats., denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, is appealable as a matter of right to the court of appeals, because sec.”
In Re Incorporation of Town of Fitchburg, 299 N.W.2d 199 (Wis. 1980). · cites it 2× “81 referendum had been scheduled to take place, counsel for the Town and the petitioners sought reconsideration of the May 31, 1980, decision on the ground that it was clearly erroneous in failing to take notice of sec. 801.08, Stats., which provides that a trial court's…”
Oxmans' Erwin Meat Co. v. Blacketer, 273 N.W.2d 285 (Wis. 1979). “1 Sec. 801.08, Stats., provides in pertinent part: “801.”
Bielefeldt v. St. Louis Fire Door Co., 279 N.W.2d 464 (Wis. 1979). · cites it 3× “4 provides that when the defendant asserts the defense of lack of jurisdiction the issue “shall be heard and determined before trial on motion of any party” in accordance with sec. 801.08, Stats. *252 Sec. 801.08, Stats.”
State v. Peterson, 297 N.W.2d 52 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Section 801.08(1), Stats., an analogous civil procedure statute, also provides for a pretrial determination of certain jurisdictional motions.”
Honeycrest Farms, Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp., 486 N.W.2d 539 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Section 801.08(2), Stats., recognizes that trial courts may have to resolve factual issues when reviewing questions of personal jurisdiction.”
Schroeder v. Raich, 278 N.W.2d 871 (Wis. 1979). “” 2 Sec. 801.08, Stats., provides in pertinent part: “801.”
Fabyan v. Achtenhagen, 2002 WI App 214 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Fabyan also argues that pleading statutes should be liberally construed and when a party makes such a pleading error, there are liberal rights of amendment; he cites to the general pleading provisions of Wis. Stat. §§ 801.08 , 802.03, 802.06, 803.”
Horrigan v. State Farm Ins., 317 N.W.2d 474 (Wis. 1982). “On January 17, 1980, State Farm filed a motion pursuant to sec. 801.08, Stats. 1979-80, 2 contesting the trial court’s jurisdiction for lack of proper service on State Farm.”
Beth Culver v. Adilakshmi Kaza, 2021 WI App 57 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 801.08 provides that all issues of fact and law raised by an objection to the court’s jurisdiction over the person shall be heard by the court without a jury in advance of any issue going to the merits of the case.”
Schroff v. Schroff, 271 N.W.2d 379 (Wis. 1978). · cites it 2× “DID KAREN SCHROFF CONSENT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE WISCONSIN TRIAL COURT WHEN SHE SIGNED THE STIPULATION FOR ALIMONY, PROPERTY DIVISION, CHILD SUPPORT, CUSTODY AND VISITATION RIGHTS WHICH WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE FLORIDA DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE JUDGMENT? Karen Sehroff…”
Henderson v. Milex Prods., Inc., 370 N.W.2d 291 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “The issue is whether the trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to sec. 801.08, Stats., to determine issues of personal jurisdiction.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 801.08(1) — 10 cases
Heaton v. Indep. Mortuary Corp., 294 N.W.2d 15 (Wis. 1980). “The defendant’s position is that an order entered pursuant to sec. 801.08, Stats., denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, is appealable as a matter of right to the court of appeals, because sec.”
State v. Peterson, 297 N.W.2d 52 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “Section 801.08(1), Stats., an analogous civil procedure statute, also provides for a pretrial determination of certain jurisdictional motions.”
Sub-Zero Freezer Co. v. R.J. Clarkson Co., 464 N.W.2d 52 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).
Honeycrest Farms, Inc. v. Brave Harvestore Sys., Inc., 546 N.W.2d 192 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
Schroff v. Schroff, 271 N.W.2d 379 (Wis. 1978). “DID KAREN SCHROFF CONSENT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE WISCONSIN TRIAL COURT WHEN SHE SIGNED THE STIPULATION FOR ALIMONY, PROPERTY DIVISION, CHILD SUPPORT, CUSTODY AND VISITATION RIGHTS WHICH WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE FLORIDA DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE JUDGMENT? Karen Sehroff…”
— Wis. Stat. § 801.08(2) — 1 case
Honeycrest Farms, Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp., 486 N.W.2d 539 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “Section 801.08(2), Stats., recognizes that trial courts may have to resolve factual issues when reviewing questions of personal jurisdiction.”
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.