Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 893.19 (2026)
Limitation when person out of state
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
893.19(1)(1) If a person is out of this state when the cause of action accrues against the person an action may be commenced within the terms of this chapter respectively limited after the person returns or removes to this state. But the foregoing provision shall not apply to any case where, at the time the cause of action accrues, neither the party against nor the party in favor of whom the same accrues is a resident of this state; and if, after a cause of action accrues against any person, he or she departs from and resides out of this state the time of absence is not any part of the time limited for the commencement of an action; provided, that no foreign corporation which files with the department of financial institutions, or any other state official or body, pursuant to the requirements of any applicable statute of this state, an instrument appointing a registered agent as provided in ch. 180, a resident or any state official or body of this state, its attorney or agent, on whom, pursuant to such instrument or any applicable statute, service of process may be made in connection with such cause of action, is deemed a person out of this state within the meaning of this section for the period during which such appointment is effective, excluding from such period the time of absence from this state of any registered agent, resident agent or attorney so appointed who departs from and resides outside of this state.
893.19(2)(2) This section shall not apply to any person who, while out of this state, may be subjected to personal jurisdiction in the courts of this state on any of the grounds specified in s. 801.05.
893.19 NoteJudicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This section is previous s. 893.30 renumbered for more logical placement in restructured ch. 893 and revised for purposes of clarity only. [Bill 326-A]
893.19 AnnotationThe validity of the defense that a North Carolina limitation statute barred the action was determined in light of analysis of North Carolina products liability case law. Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. H.O., Inc., 63 Wis. 2d 54, 216 N.W.2d 239 (1974).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2023 · leading case: State v. Holland Plastics Co., 331 N.W.2d 320 (Wis. 1983).
State v. Holland Plastics Co., 331 N.W.2d 320 (Wis. 1983). “We further conclude that sec. 893.19(3), Stats., bars the state’s claim for damages for breach of contract.”
John Doe 1 v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 2007 WI 95 (Wis. 2007). “, Wis. Stat. § 893.19 (1) (1973-74). As with the statute of limitations for negligent supervision, this statute would be tolled for one or two years after the person who brings the claim reaches the age of 18, if the injury occurred during the minority of the claimant.”
Segall v. Hurwitz, 339 N.W.2d 333 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). “Sec. 893.19(3), Stats. 1977. The complaint alleges violations of the covenant not to compete throughout its five-year period, August 31, 1972 through August 31, 1977, and that Miller and Horne operated a railroad salvage business under the name “Miller-Horne” in violation of the…”
US Oil Co., Inc. v. Koch Refining Co., 497 F. Supp. 1125 (E.D. Wis. 1980). “Alternatively, defendant argues that section 893.19 of the Wisconsin Statute governs the request for compensatory damages.”
Wisconsin Nat. Gas Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Constr. Corp., 291 N.W.2d 825 (Wis. 1980). “(Ford, Bacon & Davis), has appealed from that portion of the court of appeals' decision holding that the plaintiff's, the Wisconsin Natural Gas Company (the Gas Company), cause of action was not barred by the six (6) year statute of limitation, sec. 893.19(5), Stats., and…”
State v. Sweat, 561 N.W.2d 695 (Wis. 1997). “See Wis. Stat. § 893.19 . In addition, *436 the restitution statute expressly provides that "[d]iscovery is not available except for good cause shown.”
Abramowski v. Wm. Kilps Sons Realty, Inc., 259 N.W.2d 306 (Wis. 1977). “155, Stats, unconstitutional and applied sec. 893.19(5), Stats. This court agreed that sec.”
Hemberger v. Bitzer, 574 N.W.2d 656 (Wis. 1998). “First, in a case for *515 intentional interference with contractual relations the Wisconsin Court of Appeals interpreted Wis. Stat. § 893.19 (5) (1977), the predecessor to § 893.”
Hansen v. AH Robins, Inc., 335 N.W.2d 578 (Wis. 1983). “The defendant argued that the claim was barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations under sec. 893.19(5), Stats., 1977. We held that the gas company’s action was timely.”
Minor v. Lakeview Hosp., 421 F. Supp. 485 (E.D. Wis. 1976). “The plaintiff however argues that Wis. Stat. 893.19(4) is most appropriate: 893.”
State v. Sweat, 550 N.W.2d 709 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The trial court should also make factual findings and determine whether under § 893.19, STATS., and § 801.05, STATS., the causes of actions were tolled when Sweat moved to Texas.”
Schafer v. Wegner, 254 N.W.2d 193 (Wis. 1977). “The trial court granted summary judgment on the claim for personal property because it believed that sec. 893.19(6), Stats., 1 was the applicable statute of limitations.”
— Wis. Stat. § 893.19(1) — 1 case
State v. Sweat, 550 N.W.2d 709 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The trial court should also make factual findings and determine whether under § 893.19, STATS., and § 801.05, STATS., the causes of actions were tolled when Sweat moved to Texas.”
— Wis. Stat. § 893.19(2) — 1 case
State v. Sweat, 550 N.W.2d 709 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “The trial court should also make factual findings and determine whether under § 893.19, STATS., and § 801.05, STATS., the causes of actions were tolled when Sweat moved to Texas.”
— Wis. Stat. § 893.19(3) — 12 cases
State v. Holland Plastics Co., 331 N.W.2d 320 (Wis. 1983). “We further conclude that sec. 893.19(3), Stats., bars the state’s claim for damages for breach of contract.”
Segall v. Hurwitz, 339 N.W.2d 333 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). “Sec. 893.19(3), Stats. 1977. The complaint alleges violations of the covenant not to compete throughout its five-year period, August 31, 1972 through August 31, 1977, and that Miller and Horne operated a railroad salvage business under the name “Miller-Horne” in violation of the…”
Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys. v. Mussallem, 289 N.W.2d 801 (Wis. 1980).
Rupp v. O'connor, 261 N.W.2d 815 (Wis. 1978).
Nw. Gen. Hosp. v. Yee, 339 N.W.2d 583 (Wis. 1983).
— Wis. Stat. § 893.19(4) — 10 cases
Minor v. Lakeview Hosp., 421 F. Supp. 485 (E.D. Wis. 1976). “The plaintiff however argues that Wis. Stat. 893.19(4) is most appropriate: 893.”
Segall v. Hurwitz, 339 N.W.2d 333 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). “Sec. 893.19(3), Stats. 1977. The complaint alleges violations of the covenant not to compete throughout its five-year period, August 31, 1972 through August 31, 1977, and that Miller and Horne operated a railroad salvage business under the name “Miller-Horne” in violation of the…”
J.M.S. Ex Rel. Webb v. Benson, 283 N.W.2d 465 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979).
Tucker v. Harley Davidson Motor Co., 454 F. Supp. 738 (E.D. Wis. 1978).
Kramer v. Loewi & Co., Inc., 357 F. Supp. 83 (E.D. Wis. 1973).
— Wis. Stat. § 893.19(5) — 15 cases
Wisconsin Nat. Gas Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Constr. Corp., 291 N.W.2d 825 (Wis. 1980). “(Ford, Bacon & Davis), has appealed from that portion of the court of appeals' decision holding that the plaintiff's, the Wisconsin Natural Gas Company (the Gas Company), cause of action was not barred by the six (6) year statute of limitation, sec. 893.19(5), Stats., and…”
Segall v. Hurwitz, 339 N.W.2d 333 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). “Sec. 893.19(3), Stats. 1977. The complaint alleges violations of the covenant not to compete throughout its five-year period, August 31, 1972 through August 31, 1977, and that Miller and Horne operated a railroad salvage business under the name “Miller-Horne” in violation of the…”
State v. Holland Plastics Co., 331 N.W.2d 320 (Wis. 1983). “We further conclude that sec. 893.19(3), Stats., bars the state’s claim for damages for breach of contract.”
Abramowski v. Wm. Kilps Sons Realty, Inc., 259 N.W.2d 306 (Wis. 1977). “155, Stats, unconstitutional and applied sec. 893.19(5), Stats. This court agreed that sec.”
Hansen v. AH Robins, Inc., 335 N.W.2d 578 (Wis. 1983). “The defendant argued that the claim was barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations under sec. 893.19(5), Stats., 1977. We held that the gas company’s action was timely.”
— Wis. Stat. § 893.19(6) — 1 case
Schafer v. Wegner, 254 N.W.2d 193 (Wis. 1977). “The trial court granted summary judgment on the claim for personal property because it believed that sec. 893.19(6), Stats., 1 was the applicable statute of limitations.”
— Wis. Stat. § 893.19(7) — 7 cases
Cahill v. Ernst & Ernst, 448 F. Supp. 84 (E.D. Wis. 1978).
Turner v. First Wisconsin Mortg. Trust, 454 F. Supp. 899 (E.D. Wis. 1978).
Colonial Bank & Trust Co. v. Am. Bankshares Corp., 442 F. Supp. 234 (E.D. Wis. 1977).
Schafer v. Wegner, 254 N.W.2d 193 (Wis. 1977). “The trial court granted summary judgment on the claim for personal property because it believed that sec. 893.19(6), Stats., 1 was the applicable statute of limitations.”
Kramer v. Loewi & Co., Inc., 357 F. Supp. 83 (E.D. Wis. 1973).
— Wis. Stat. § 893.19(B) — 1 case
State v. Holland Plastics Co., 331 N.W.2d 320 (Wis. 1983). “We further conclude that sec. 893.19(3), Stats., bars the state’s claim for damages for breach of contract.”
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.