¶ 33. (dissenting). For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 34. The majority opinion fails to follow the clear dictates of State ex rel. Kulike v. Town Clerk, 132 Wis. 103, 111 N.W 1129 (1907), in this case. Given Kulike's specific instructions, I find that Kulike provides sufficient guidance regarding the appropriate party to be served in a common law writ of certiorari action, such as is the case here. The Kulike court held:
Except where specifically provided by statute or in particular cases of necessity, as where the board or body whose acts are sought to be reviewed is not continuing or has ceased to exist, the writ of certiorari cannot properly run to a mere ministerial officer simply because he is the custodian of the records, but must go to the board or body whose acts are sought to be reviewed, otherwise the court cannot obtain jurisdiction either of the subject matter or of the persons composing such board or body.
Id. at 105. According to Kulike, the person served with the writ of certiorari must be the person "whose acts are *699sought to be reviewed." Id. If the incorrect person or entity is served, the court lacks personal jurisdiction to review the case.
¶ 35. Further, State ex rel. Smith v. McCaughtry, 222 Wis. 2d 68, 586 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1998) (abrogated in part as to futility exception to exhaustion requirement by State ex rel. Hensley v. Endicott, 2001 WI 105, ¶ 13, 245 Wis. 2d 607, 621, 629 N.W.2d 686), clarifies the law as to the party to whom service is appropriately directed in disciplinary cases involving claims of procedural error. Smith states that the warden's or superintendent's "decision is not final if the inmate can seek further review through the ICRS." Id. at 74. Smith further explains that:
[T]he number and specificity of the changes in the current version of WIS. ADM. CODE ch. DOC 310 leave no ambiguity about the Department's intent. The intent is that procedural errors are within the scope of the ICRS, and as to those types of errors the warden's decision is no longer final.
Id. The majority indicates that Smith does not provide sufficient guidance regarding whom to serve, and, therefore, ambiguity exists. See majority op., ¶ 28 and ¶ 29. I disagree that Smith, Kulike, and the administrative code sections are ambiguous. Based on the holding in Smith, Grzelak was required to serve the secretary of the Department of Corrections. It is not unreasonable to expect Grzelak to comply with these procedural rules. Because Grzelak incorrectly served the warden, Daniel Bertrand, instead of serving the secretary of the Department of Corrections, the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over the secretary and, therefore, the circuit court could not review the issues presented.
*700¶ 36. Moreover, I disagree with the majority opinion's strong reliance on three condemnation cases, all dealing with statutory certiorari, to provide an exception to Kulike, which involved common law cer-tiorari. Although the majority concedes that Smith is correct, see majority op., ¶ 28, it uses condemnation cases to attempt to carve out an exception for Grzelak, despite the lack of jurisdiction. Because I find that Smith and Kulike are controlling authorities here, the use of condemnation cases in an effort to provide a means for Grzelak to have his issues reviewed, despite serving the wrong person, is unpersuasive.
¶ 37. Earlier this term this court had the occasion to resolve another personal jurisdiction issue. In Hagen v. City of Milwaukee, 2003 WI 56, 262 Wis. 2d 113, 663 N.W.2d 268, this court refused to find personal jurisdiction when the plaintiff served the summons and complaint on a nonparty located in the same building as the defendant, but not on the defendant. This occurred allegedly at the direction of a person in the defendant's office. Id., ¶ 25. In Hagen, the plaintiffs process server went to the Milwaukee Employes' Retirement System/Annuity and Pension Board (MERS) office, but was told that process should be served at the city clerk's office. Id., ¶ 8. As a result, the process server went to the clerk's office, and a clerk's office employee accepted service. Id. MERS asserted that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it as a result of the process server's failure to achieve service on it. Id., ¶ 6. This court agreed and we affirmed the court of appeals, and held that the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over MERS due to the improper service of process. Id., ¶ 26.
¶ 38. In Hagen, this court correctly decided that mistake was not an excuse, warranting the extension of *701personal jurisdiction over a party. This reasoning clearly applies to the facts of this case. Because Grzelak chose service on the warden, and not on the secretary, the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction. Any attempt to read ambiguity into the statutes, administrative code, and case law does not change Hagen's holding. A mistake in the service of process, whereby the wrong person or entity is served, does not provide the plaintiff with an excuse for the lack of personal jurisdiction.
¶ 39. I agree with the court of appeals' analysis of this case. The court of appeals stated:
Grzelak's procedural challenges include lack of notice, inability to compel the attendance of witnesses and untimely or inadequate service of complaints on him. He named the prison warden, Daniel Bertrand, the respondent in this certiorari action. The secretary of the Department of Corrections, not the warden, is the final administrative authority on procedural matters. See State ex rel. Smith v. McCaughtry, 222 Wis. 2d 68, 74, 586 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1998). Because Grzelak seeks review of the secretary's decision, his failure to direct the writ to the secretary deprives the court of subject matter and personal jurisdiction to review those issues. See State ex rel. Kulike v. Town Clerk, 132 Wis. 103, 105, 111 N.W 1129 (1907).
State ex rel. Grzelak v. Bertrand, No. 02-0678, unpublished order (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2002). Because I find that Kulike, Smith, and Hagen are applicable to this case, we should not find personal jurisdiction where none exists.
¶ 40. For the reasons discussed, I respectfully dissent.
*702¶ 41. I am authorized to state that Justice DIANE S. SYKES joins this dissent.