Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Procedure — amended complaints — relation back doctrine

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 23, 2014//

Civil Procedure — amended complaints — relation back doctrine

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 23, 2014//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Civil Procedure — amended complaints — relation back doctrine

Patrick Finnegan, pro se, appeals from an order granting the motion to dismiss filed by Joe Parisi and Scott McDonnell (collectively, Parisi). Finnegan argues that: (1) the circuit court erred in granting Parisi’s motion to dismiss because Finnegan’s failure to name the proper party, Dane County, was a mistake that did not prejudice Dane County; and (2) the circuit court erred in denying his motion to amend his summons and complaint a second time because the second amended complaint was timely under the relation back doctrine. I conclude that the circuit court did not err in granting Parisi’s motion to dismiss and in denying Finnegan’s motion to amend, and, therefore, I affirm. This opinion will not be published.

2014AP907 Finnegan v. Parisi et al.

Dist IV, Dane County, Albert, J., Kloppenburg, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Finnegan, Patrick, pro se; For Respondent: Gault, David R., Madison

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests