Court Opinion

ID: 9687936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:54:14.161446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:33.356924
License: Public Domain

Hallows, C. J.
(dissenting). While the reach of the Wisconsin long-arm statute is long, its application in this case renders the arm too long. I consider the facts to be beyond the statute’s reach, to be protected by the due-process clause, and to be ruled by Hanson v. Denckla (1958), 357 U. S. 235, 78 Sup. Ct. 1228, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1283. All that can be said for the minimal contacts is that the defendant contracted for the services of the plaintiff which could and probably would be performed in Wisconsin. These services were not in the nature of carrying on the business of the defendant in this state. The plaintiff was an independent contractor and not the defendant’s agent. Where the plaintiff did his work and conducted his business was immaterial to the defendant. Consequently, the activities of the plaintiff should not be considered the activities of the defendant in Wisconsin. *71It cannot be said realistically that the nonresident defendant performed an act or consummated a transaction in this forum. Nor can it be said the cause of action arose out of or resulted from the activities of the defendant within the forum. It is the activities of the plaintiff which the majority uses as a basis for jurisdiction. To base personal jurisdiction on such purpose violates fair play and substantial justice, and I think it is entirely unreasonable to subject the defendant to Wisconsin litigation. If the majority decision is sound, then every nonresident who purchases a product made for him in Wisconsin may be sued in Wisconsin.
. I respectfully dissent.