Logic v. City of South Milwaukee Board of Canvassers 689 N.W.2d 692 277 Wis.2d 421, 689 N.W.2d 692, 2004 WI App 219 (Cite as: 277 Wis.2d 421, 689 N.W.2d 692) Page 4 Kieck had either authorized or appointed her to accept service for him in his capacity as a candidate. See Useni v. Boudron, 2003 WI App 98, ¶ 11, 264 Wis.2d 783, 791-792, 662 N.W.2d 672, 676-677 (person who is named in a dual capacity must be properly served in each capacity). III. ¶ 9 The circuit court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Logic's appeal because Logic did not personally serve Kieck as required by Wis. Stat. § 9.01(6)(a). Accordingly, we do not address either Logic's contention that the circuit court erred in permitting Kieck to intervene in the action, or Logic's argument that the Board of Canvassers improperly gave the election to Kieck. See Gross v. Hoffman, 227 Wis. 296, 300, 277 N.W. 663, 665 (1938) (only dispositive issue need be addressed); *429State v. Blalock, 150 Wis.2d 688, 703, 442 N.W.2d 514, 520 (Ct.App.1989) (cases should be decided on the "narrowest possible ground"). Judgment affirmed. 277 Wis.2d 421, 689 N.W.2d 692, 2004 WI App 219 Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top) • 2004 WL 3662855 (Appellate Brief) Reply Brief of the Plaintiff-Appellant (Sep. 08, 2004) • 2004 WL 3640632 (Appellate Brief) Brief of the Defendant-Respondent (Aug. 20, 2004) • 2004 WL 3640631 (Appellate Brief) Brief of the PlaintiffAppellant (Aug. 04, 2004) END OF DOCUMENT © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 323