Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided November 17, 2010No. 2009AP2549PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNeubauer, P.J.

¶ 1. Cintas Corporation No. 2 (Cintas No. 2) appeals from a default judgment entered in favor of its employee, Robert Johnson. Cintas No. 2 contends the default judgment, entered immediately after the trial court permitted amendment of the pleadings to name Cintas No. 2, is void because the original summons and complaint named the wrong corporate entity — its parent, Cintas Corporation. We agree. Because personal jurisdiction is acquired by personal service of a summons naming the served party as a defendant and because the plaintiff named the wrong corporate entity, Cintas Corporation, the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Gross v. HoffmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Reiman Associates, Inc. v. R/A Advertising, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1981
  3. American Family Mutual Insurance v. Royal Insurance Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Necedah Manufacturing Corp. v. Juneau CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Dugenske v. DugenskeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Cintas Corp. No. 2Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Paul Davis Restoration of S.E. Wisconsin, Inc. v. Paul Davis Restoration of Northeast WisconsinWisconsin Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Paul Davis Restoration of S.E. Wisconsin, Inc. v. Paul Davis Restoration of Northeast WisconsinWisconsin Supreme Court · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API