Constitutional Law — sovereign immunity

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Constitutional Law — sovereign immunity

Sections 88.87 and 32.181 do not clearly and expressly constitute consent by the State to be sued.

“Hoops does not deny that its lawsuit was brought against the State. Instead, it insists that the State is a proper party and that service on the State was appropriate as the DOT is a State agency. Hoops’ argument would require this court to ignore settled law providing that the State must clearly and expressly consent to suit and that suits under the applicable statutes must be brought against the DOT instead of the State. The State was not a proper party for claims against the DOT as the two are distinct legal entities. See Konrad, 4 Wis. 2d at 539.2[3] Further, service on the State of a summons and complaint that named the State and not the DOT as a party does not constitute service on the DOT necessary to establish personal jurisdiction over the DOT. See Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 2012 WI 31, ¶40, 339 Wis. 2d 493, 811 N.W.2d 756.”

Reversed and Remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2012AP62 Hoops Enterprises, III, LLC, v. Super Western, Inc.

Dist. II, Washington County, Muehlbauer, J., Reilly, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Moriarty, Richard B., Madison; For Respondent: Plantinga, Victor, Milwaukee