State ex rel. Pharm v. Bartow
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1DissentShirley S. Abrahamsqn, C.J.
¶ 41. Wisconsin may very well have personal jurisdiction to commence Wis. Stat. ch. 980 proceedings against Pharm, who is physically present in Wisconsin. The traditional rule that physical presence confers personal jurisdiction is not, however, without exception in civil cases.1 Because the majority opinion does not fully address the jurisdictional issue, I will not comment further.
¶ 42. Although it is not pertinent to a decision in this case, I feel compelled to express surprise that the State of Wisconsin wants to keep Pharm in Wisconsin as a chapter 980 sex offender when Nevada would *730other…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Frisbie v. CollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- United States v. MauroSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Ker v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Carchman v. NashSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Jimmy Ray Pitsonbarger v. Richard GramleyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.