Legal Opinion

Heaston v. Austin

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1970No. 213PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilkie, J.

The sole issue before this court is whether by service of process utilized in this case the trial court obtained personal jurisdiction over defendant Cecil Austin.

The purpose of a summons is to give notice to the defendant that an action has been commenced against him. In order for a court to obtain jurisdiction over a person, a summons must be served in a manner prescribed by the statutes.

The statute relating to personal and substituted service on individuals is sec. 262.06, which provides, in part:

“262.06 Personal jurisdiction, manner of serving summons for. A court of this state having…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. West Side Bank v. Marine National Exchange BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Howard v. PrestonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Milwaukee County v. Schmidt, Garden & EriksonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Beneficial Finance Co. v. LeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Milwaukee Acceptance Corp. v. DoreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Miller v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Danielson v. Brody Seating Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  3. 519 CORP. v. Department of TransportationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Hagen v. City of Milwaukee Employee's Retirement System Annuity & Pension BoardWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Bulik v. Arrow Realty, Inc. of RacineCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1988

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API