47 Wis. 2d 67 - Heaston v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably 100 Wis. 2d 609 - Miller v. Smith (1981), 71 Wis. 2d 424 - Danielson v. Brody Seating Co. (1976)
2 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on West Side Bank v. Marine National Exchange Bank · Howard v. Preston · 35 Wis. 2d 33 - Milwaukee County v. Schmidt, Garden & Erikson · 37 Wis. 2d 263 - Beneficial Finance Co. v. Lee · 43 Wis. 2d 412 - Milwaukee Acceptance Corp. v. Dore
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . When the defendant cannot with reasonable diligence be served personally within the state under s. 247.061, service may be made as follows: “ (1) Personal service without the state. By personally serving the summons and a copy of the verified complaint upon the defendant without the state and within 20 days thereafter filing the summons and verified complaint in court and serving copies of the summons and verified complaint on the family court commissioner ; or “(2) Mailing and publication. If with reasonable diligence the defendant cannot be served under sub. (1), service may be made by mailing a copy of the summons and verified complaint and publication of the summons. Prior to mailing and publication the summons and verified complaint shall be filed in court. Prior to trial the plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel shall file an affidavit in court describing efforts to make personal service upon the defendant within or without the state. . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““262.06 Personal jurisdiction, manner of serving summons for. A court of this state having jurisdiction of the subject matter and grounds for personal jurisdiction as provided in s. 262.05 may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant by service of a summons as follows: (t “(5) Domestic or foreign corporations, generally. Upon a domestic or foreign corporation: “(a) By personally serving the summons upon an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation either within or without this state. In lieu of delivering the copy of the summons to the officer specified, the copy may be left in the office of such officer, director or managing agent with the person who is apparently in charge of the office. “(b) . . . “(c) By serving the summons in a manner specified by any other statute upon the defendant or upon an agent authorized by appointment or by law to accept service of the summons for the defendant.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Even if defendant actually knew of the pendency of the action, this is not equivalent to service.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.