227.53 Annotation
Failure to strictly comply with the caption requirements of (1) does not divest a court of jurisdiction if all other jurisdictional requirements are met. Evans v. Dept. of Local Affairs & Development, 62 W (2d) 622, 215 NW (2d) 408.
227.53 Annotation
Where the taxpayer failed to serve a copy of his petition for review of a decision and order of the tax appeals commission upon the department of revenue within 30 days, the circuit court had no jurisdiction. Cudahy v. Dept. of Revenue, 66 W (2d) 253, 224 NW (2d) 570.
227.53 Annotation
The implied authority of the PSC under various provisions of ch. 196, to insure that future supplies of natural gas will remain as reasonably adequate and sufficient as practicable indicates a legally recognized interest of the environmental group members living in the area affected by the commission order in the future adequacy of their service which is sufficient to provide standing if the facts alleged in the petition are true to challenge the commission's failure to consider conservation alternatives to the proposed priority system. Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 69 W (2d) 1, 230 NW (2d) 243.
227.53 Annotation
County has standing to challenge validity of rule not adopted in conformity with ss. 227.02 through 227.025, 1983 stats. Dane County v. H&SS Dept. 79 W (2d) 323, 255 NW (2d) 539.
227.53 Annotation
"Parties" under sub. (1) (c), 1975 stats., are those persons affirmatively demonstrating active interest in the proceedings; PSC must identify parties. Wis. Environmental Decade v. Public Service Comm. 84 W (2d) 504, 267 NW (2d) 609 (1978).
227.53 Annotation
Ch. 801 is inapplicable to judicial review proceedings. Omernick v. DNR, 94 W (2d) 309, 287 NW (2d) 841 (Ct. App. 1979).
227.53 Annotation
Service on department rather than on specific division within department was sufficient notice under this section. Sunnyview Village v. Adm. Dept. 104 W (2d) 396, 311 NW (2d) 632 (1981).
227.53 Annotation
Where petitioners lacked standing to seek review and where intervenors filed after time limit in sub. (1), intervenors could not continue to press claim. Fox v. DHSS, 112 W (2d) 514, 334 NW (2d) 532 (1983).
227.53 Annotation
See note to s. 1.11, citing Milwaukee Brewers v. DH&SS, 130 W (2d) 56, 387 NW (2d) 245 (1986).
227.53 Annotation
Two-part test for determining whether party has standing under sub. (1) discussed. Waste Management of Wisconsin v. DNR, 144 W (2d) 499, 424 NW (2d) 685 (1988).
227.53 Annotation
County has standing to bring petition for review because petition initiates special proceeding rather than action. Richland County v. DH&SS, 146 W (2d) 271, 430 NW (2d) 374 (Ct. App. 1988).
227.53 Annotation
Delivery of a petition to an agency attorney did not meet the requirements for service under sub. (1) (a) 1. Weisensel v. DHSS, 179 W (2d) 637, 508 NW (2d) 33 (Ct. App. 1993).
227.53 Annotation
Time provisions under sub. (2) are mandatory. Wagner v. State Medical Examining Board, 181 W (2d) 633, 511 NW (2d) 874 (1994).
227.54
227.54
Stay of proceedings. The institution of the proceeding for review shall not stay enforcement of the agency decision. The reviewing court may order a stay upon such terms as it deems proper, except as otherwise provided in
ss. 196.43 and
551.62.
227.54 History
History: 1983 a. 27;
1985 a. 182 s.
39; Stats. 1985 s. 227.54;
1987 a. 5.
227.55
227.55
Record on review. Within 30 days after service of the petition for review upon the agency, or within such further time as the court may allow, the agency shall transmit to the reviewing court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceedings in which the decision under review was made, including all pleadings, notices, testimony, exhibits, findings, decisions, orders and exceptions, therein; but by stipulation of all parties to the review proceedings the record may be shortened by eliminating any portion thereof. Any party, other than the agency, refusing to stipulate to limit the record may be taxed by the court for the additional costs. The record may be typewritten or printed. The exhibits may be typewritten, photostated or otherwise reproduced, or, upon motion of any party, or by order of the court, the original exhibits shall accompany the record. The court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record when deemed desirable.
227.55 History
History: 1985 a. 182 s.
41; Stats. 1985 s. 227.55.
227.55 Annotation
Time provisions under this section are mandatory. Wagner v. State Medical Examining Board, 181 W (2d) 633, 511 NW (2d) 874 (1994).
227.56
227.56
Additional evidence; trial; motion to dismiss; amending petition. 227.56(1)(1) If before the date set for trial, application is made to the circuit court for leave to present additional evidence on the issues in the case, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceedings before the agency, the court may order that the additional evidence be taken before the agency upon such terms as the court may deem proper. The agency may modify its findings and decision by reason of the additional evidence and shall file with the reviewing court the additional evidence together with any modified or new findings or decision.
227.56(2)
(2) Proceedings for review of administrative agency decisions as provided in this chapter may be brought on for trial or hearing at any time upon not less than 10 days' notice given after the expiration of the time for service of the notices provided in
s. 227.53 (2).
227.56(3)
(3) Within 20 days after the time specified in
s. 227.53 for filing notices of appearance in any proceeding for review, any respondent who has served such notice may move to dismiss the petition as filed upon the ground that such petition, upon its face, does not state facts sufficient to show that the petitioner named therein is a person aggrieved by the decision sought to be reviewed. Upon the hearing of such motion the court may grant the petitioner leave to amend the petition if the amendment as proposed shall have been served upon all respondents prior to such hearing. If so amended the court may consider and pass upon the validity of the amended petition without further or other motion to dismiss the same by any respondent.
227.56 History
History: 1975 c. 414;
1985 a. 182 ss.
41,
57; Stats. 1985 s. 227.56.
227.56 Annotation
See note to 111.39, citing Chicago & N.W.R.R. v. Labor & Ind. Rev. Comm. 91 W (2d) 462, 283 NW (2d) 603 (Ct. App. 1979).
227.56 Annotation
A court may not find facts under (1); the court may only receive evidence to determine whether to remand to the agency for further fact finding. State Public Intervenor v. DNR, 171 W (2d) 243, 490 NW (2d) 770 (Ct. App. 1992).
227.57
227.57
Scope of review. 227.57(1)(1) The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record, except that in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, testimony thereon may be taken in the court and, if leave is granted to take such testimony, depositions and written interrogatories may be taken prior to the date set for hearing as provided in
ch. 804 if proper cause is shown therefor.
227.57(2)
(2) Unless the court finds a ground for setting aside, modifying, remanding or ordering agency action or ancillary relief under a specified provision of this section, it shall affirm the agency's action.
227.57(3)
(3) The court shall separately treat disputed issues of agency procedure, interpretations of law, determinations of fact or policy within the agency's exercise of delegated discretion.
227.57(4)
(4) The court shall remand the case to the agency for further action if it finds that either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action has been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed procedure.
227.57(5)
(5) The court shall set aside or modify the agency action if it finds that the agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of law and a correct interpretation compels a particular action, or it shall remand the case to the agency for further action under a correct interpretation of the provision of law.
227.57(6)
(6) If the agency's action depends on any fact found by the agency in a contested case proceeding, the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact. The court shall, however, set aside agency action or remand the case to the agency if it finds that the agency's action depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
227.57(7)
(7) If the agency's action depends on facts determined without a hearing, the court shall set aside, modify or order agency action if the facts compel a particular action as a matter of law, or it may remand the case to the agency for further examination and action within the agency's responsibility.
227.57(8)
(8) The court shall reverse or remand the case to the agency if it finds that the agency's exercise of discretion is outside the range of discretion delegated to the agency by law; is inconsistent with an agency rule, an officially stated agency policy or a prior agency practice, if deviation therefrom is not explained to the satisfaction of the court by the agency; or is otherwise in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision; but the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on an issue of discretion.
227.57(9)
(9) The court's decision shall provide whatever relief is appropriate irrespective of the original form of the petition. If the court sets aside agency action or remands the case to the agency for further proceedings, it may make such interlocutory order as it finds necessary to preserve the interests of any party and the public pending further proceedings or agency action.
227.57(10)
(10) Upon such review due weight shall be accorded the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency involved, as well as discretionary authority conferred upon it. The right of the appellant to challenge the constitutionality of any act or of its application to the appellant shall not be foreclosed or impaired by the fact that the appellant has applied for or holds a license, permit or privilege under such act.
227.57 History
History: 1975 c. 94 s.
3;
1975 c. 414;
1979 c. 208;
1985 a. 182 s.
41; Stats. 1985 s. 227.57.
227.57 Annotation
Finding of fact is supported under (6) if reasonable minds could arrive at the same conclusion. Westring v. James, 71 W (2d) 462, 238 NW (2d) 695.
227.57 Annotation
Reviewing court, in dealing with determination or judgment which administrative agency is alone authorized to make, must judge propriety of action solely by grounds invoked by agency with sufficient clarity. Stas v. Milw. County Civil Service Comm. 75 W (2d) 465, 249 NW (2d) 764.
227.57 Annotation
See note to 30.12, citing Kosmatka v. DNR, 77 W (2d) 558, 253 NW (2d) 887.
227.57 Annotation
Summary judgment procedure is not authorized in proceedings for judicial review under this chapter. Wis. Environmental Decade v. Public Service Comm. 79 W (2d) 161, 255 NW (2d) 917.
227.57 Annotation
"Discretion" means process of reasoning, not decision-making, based on facts in record or reasonably inferred from record, and conclusion based on logical rationale founded on proper legal standards. Reidinger v. Optometry Examining Board, 81 W (2d) 292, 260 NW (2d) 270.
227.57 Annotation
See note to 220.035, citing State ex rel. 1st Nat. Bank v. M & I Peoples Bk. 82 W (2d) 529, 263 NW (2d) 196.
227.57 Annotation
See note to 1.11, citing Wis. Environmental Decade v. Public Service Comm. 98 W (2d) 682, 298 NW (2d) 205 (Ct. App. 1980).
227.57 Annotation
See note to 628.34, citing Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 101 W (2d) 90, 303 NW (2d) 639 (1981).
227.57 Annotation
See note to 806.07, citing Charter Mfg. v. Milw. River Restoration, 102 W (2d) 521, 307 NW (2d) 322 (Ct. App. 1981).
227.57 Annotation
Party cannot recover attorney's fees against state under (9). Administrative judge should have been disqualified due to compelling appearance of impropriety. Guthrie v. Wis. Employment Relations Comm. 107 W (2d) 306, 320 NW (2d) 213 (Ct. App. 1982), aff'd. 111 W (2d) 447, 331 NW (2d) 331 (1983).
227.57 Annotation
Commission's change of accounting treatment for recovery of utility expenditures was arbitrary and capricious. Public Ser. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm. 109 W (2d) 256, 325 NW (2d) 867 (1982).
227.57 Annotation
WERC did not abuse discretion by finding no community of interest between professional teachers and student interns. Unit fragmentation under 111.70 (4) (d) 2. a discussed. Arrowhead United Teachers v. ERC, 116 W (2d) 580, 342 NW (2d) 709 (1984).
227.57 Annotation
Sub. (7) grants trial court broad authority to remand matter to agency for further action where no hearing has been held and no particular result is compelled as matter of law. R. W. Docks & Slips v. DNR, 145 W (2d) 854, 429 NW (2d) 86 (Ct. App. 1988).
227.57 Annotation
On review, there are three levels of deference which may be given to an administrative agency's conclusions of law and statutory interpretations, depending on the agency's experience, technical competence and knowledge in regard to the question presented. Kelley Co. v. Marquardt, 172 W (2d) 234, 493 NW (2d) 68 (1992).
227.57 Annotation
Statutes enabling rule promulgation are strictly construed to preclude the exercise of a power not expressly granted. Whether an agency exceeded its authority in promulgating a rule is reviewed de novo by a reviewing court. State Public Intervenor v. DNR, 177 W (2d) 666, 503 NW (2d) 305 (Ct. App. 1993).
227.57 Annotation
Agency jurisdiction is a legal issue reviewed de novo by a reviewing court. An agency's decision on the scope of its own power is not binding on the court. Loomis v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 179 W (2d) 25, 505 NW (2d) 462 (Ct. App. 1993).
227.57 Annotation
Default judgment is incompatible with the scope of review of a ch. 227 proceeding. Wagner v. State Medical Examining Board, 181 W (2d) 633, 511 NW (2d) 874 (1994).
227.57 Annotation
A circuit judge has inherent authority to order briefs in a case under this section and to dismiss the action if a party fails to file a brief as ordered. Lee v. LIRC, 202 W (2d) 559, 550 NW (2d) 534 (Ct. App. 1996).
227.57 Annotation
See note to Art. I, sec. 1, citing Hortonville Dist. v. Hortonville Ed. Asso. 426 US 482.
227.57 Annotation
If court affirms agency decision under (2), unsuccessful claimant may not bring claim to federal court. Young v. Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. 569 F Supp. 741 (1983).
227.57 Annotation
The scope of judicial review in Wisconsin. Hewitt, 1973 WLR 554.
227.57 Annotation
The standard of review of administrative rules in Wisconsin. 1982 WLR 691.
227.58
227.58
Appeals. Any party, including the agency, may secure a review of the final judgment of the circuit court by appeal to the court of appeals within the time period specified in
s. 808.04 (1).
227.58 History
History: 1977 c. 187 s.
134;
1983 a. 219;
1985 a. 182 s.
41; Stats. 1985 s. 227.58.
227.58 Note
Judicial Council Note, 1983: This section is amended by repealing the appeal deadline of 30 days from notice of entry of judgment for greater uniformity. An appeal must be initiated within the time specified in s. 808.04 (1), stats. This section is further amended to eliminate the superfluous provision that the appeal is taken in the manner of other civil appeals. Civil appeal procedures are governed by chs. 808 and 809. [Bill 151-S]
227.58 Annotation
Court of appeals had no power to remand case under 806.07 (1) (b) or (h); ch. 227 cannot be supplemented by statutory remedies pertaining to civil procedure. Chicago & N.W.R.R. v. Labor & Ind. Rev. Comm. 91 W (2d) 462, 283 NW (2d) 603 (Ct. App. 1979).
227.59
227.59
Certification of certain cases from the circuit court of Dane county to other circuits. Any action or proceeding for the review of any order of an administrative officer, commission, department or other administrative tribunal of the state required by law to be instituted in or taken to the circuit court of Dane county except an action or appeal for the review of any order of the department of industry, labor and job development or the department of commerce or findings and orders of the labor and industry review commission which is instituted or taken and is not called for trial or hearing within 6 months after the proceeding or action is instituted, and the trial or hearing of which is not continued by stipulation of the parties or by order of the court for cause shown, shall on the application of either party on 5 days' written notice to the other be certified and transmitted for trial to the circuit court of the county of the residence or principal place of business of the plaintiff or petitioner, where the action or proceeding shall be given preference. Unless written objection is filed within the 5-day period, the order certifying and transmitting the proceeding shall be entered without hearing. The plaintiff or petitioner shall pay to the clerk of the circuit court of Dane county a fee of $2 for transmitting the record.
227.59 History
History: 1977 c. 29;
1983 a. 219;
1985 a. 182 s.
47; Stats. 1985 s. 227.59;
1995 a. 27 ss.
6238,
9116 (5),
9130 (4).
227.60
227.60
Jurisdiction of state courts to determine validity of laws when attacked in federal court and to stay enforcement. Whenever a suit praying for an interlocutory injunction shall have been begun in a federal district court to restrain any department, board, commission or officer from enforcing or administering any statute or administrative order of this state, or to set aside or enjoin the suit or administrative order, the department, board, commission or officer, or the attorney general, may bring a suit to enforce the statute or order in the circuit court of Dane county at any time before the hearing on the application for an interlocutory injunction in the suit in the federal court. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the circuit court of Dane county and on the court of appeals, on appeal, to entertain the suit with the powers granted in this section. The circuit court shall, when the suit is brought, grant a stay of proceedings by any state department, board, commission or officer under the statute or order pending the determination of the suit in the courts of the state. The circuit court of Dane county upon the bringing of the suit therein shall at once cause a notice thereof, together with a copy of the stay order by it granted, to be sent to the federal district court in which the action was originally begun. An appeal shall be taken within the time period specified in
s. 808.04 (2). The appeal shall be given preference.
227.60 History
History: 1977 c. 187;
1983 a. 219;
1985 a. 182 s.
49; Stats. 1985 s. 227.60.
227.60 Note
Judicial Council Note, 1983: This section is amended to replace the appeal deadline of 10 days after termination of the suit by the time provisions of s. 808.04 (2), for greater uniformity. Section 808.04 (2) provides that an appeal must be initiated within 15 days of entry of judgment or order appealed from. The provision requiring preferential court treatment is harmonized and standardized with similar provisions in the statutes. [Bill 151-S]
