Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

02-0166 Town of Dunkirk v. City of Stoughton

By: dmc-admin//November 4, 2002//

02-0166 Town of Dunkirk v. City of Stoughton

By: dmc-admin//November 4, 2002//

Listen to this article

Accordingly, we affirm the order dismissing this action.

Under the analysis set out in Schaefer v. Riegelman, 2002 WI 18, , we conclude Cassidy’s signature on the initial summons and on the initial complaint was a fundamental defect because he was suspended from the practice of law in Wisconsin. We also conclude that, even if the defect could be cured under the corrective provision in Wis. Stat. § 802.05(1)(a), the Town did not cure the defect on the summons because it never filed and served a summons signed by new counsel. Therefore, the circuit court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and it properly dismissed this action.”

Order affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, DeChambeau, J., Vergeront, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Constance L. Anderson, Madison; Gregory D. Murray, Madison

For Respondent: Michael R. Haas, Edgerton; Stephen J. Liccione, Milwaukee; Andrew W. Erlandson, Madison

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests