 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pischke v. Sondalle5/25/2000
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.
APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Dodge County: JOHN R. STORCK, Judge. Affirmed.
. Keith Pischke appeals an order dismissing his small claims action against Ken Sondalle, warden of the Fox Lake Correctional Institution. Pischke also appeals an order denying his motion for reconsideration. The circuit court dismissed Pischke's cause of action after determining that he failed to serve a notice of claim upon the attorney general as required by Wis. Stat. § 893.82. We conclude that the circuit court did not err in dismissing Pischke's action. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the circuit court.
BACKGROUND
. Keith Pischke is an inmate committed to the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. In June 1998, he was transferred from the Fox Lake Correctional Institution in Wisconsin to the North Fork Correctional Facility in Oklahoma. According to Pischke, several items of his personal property were not delivered to him after the transfer. In July 1999, Pischke filed a small claims action in the Dodge County circuit court naming Ken Sondalle, warden of the Fox Lake Correctional Institution, as the sole defendant. In his summons and complaint, Pischke asked the court to order Sondalle to return Pischke's property or, in the alternative, to pay him five hundred dollars.
. In August 1999, Sondalle moved for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) Pischke failed to serve a notice of claim upon the attorney general as required by Wis. Stat. § 893.82; (2) Sondalle cannot be held personally liable for the alleged negligence of his employees; and (3) Pischke's suit is barred by the doctrines of sovereign and public officer immunity. Sondalle's motion was supported by an affidavit of a paralegal employed by the Department of Justice in which the paralegal explained that she had "searched records" and was "unable to locate a notice of claim filed with the Attorney General" by Pischke. In November 1999, the circuit court determined that Pischke had failed to serve a notice of claim as mandated by Wis. Stat. § 893.82, and the court entered an order granting Sondalle's motion for summary judgment. Pischke subsequently submitted a motion for reconsideration in which he argued that the notice of claim requirement of § 893.82 did not apply to his suit against Sondalle. The court disagreed and denied his motion for reconsideration. Pischke appeals.
ANALYSIS
. We review the circuit court's grant of summary judgment, and its denial of reconsideration, de novo, using the same methodology as the trial court. See Envirologix Corp. v. City of Waukesha, 192 Wis. 2d 277, 287-88, 531 N.W.2d 357 (Ct. App. 1995). Summary judgment shall be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See M&I;First Nat'l Bank v. Episcopal Homes Management, Inc., 195 Wis. 2d 485, 496-97, 536 N.W.2d 175 (Ct. App. 1995); see also Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2).
. The circuit court granted Sondalle's motion for summary judgment because it concluded that Pischke was required to comply with the notice of claim requirement set forth in Wis. Stat. § 893.82. Although Pischke does not dispute that a notice of claim was never served on the attorney general, he contends that the circuit court erred when it concluded that § 893.82 applies to his small claims action. Specifically, Pischke contends that (1) existing caselaw indicates that § 893.82 is inapplicable to lawsuits like his, and (2) the court erroneously determined that h
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|