great weight standard in Wisconsin

2000Having determined that the great weight standard applies here, the "agency's interpretation must then merely be reasonable for it to be sustained." Harnischfeger Corp. v. LIRC, 196 Wis. 2d 650, 661 , 539 N.W.2d 98 (1995). ¶ 14.

2000Having determined that the great weight standard applies here, the "agency's interpretation must then merely be reasonable for it to be sustained." Harnischfeger Corp. v. LIRC, 196 Wis. 2d 650, 661 , 539 N.W.2d 98 (1995). ¶ 14.

2002Applying the great weight standard, we will affirm WERC's conclusion that teacher prep time is a permissive subject of bargaining if "the agency's view of the law is reasonable even though an alternative view is also reasonable." West Bend, 121 Wis. 2d at 13-14 .

2002Applying the great weight standard, we will affirm WERC's conclusion that teacher prep time is a permissive subject of bargaining if "the agency's view of the law is reasonable even though an alternative view is also reasonable." West Bend, 121 Wis. 2d at 13-14 .

2007Target Stores, 217 Wis. 2d at 17-18 .

2007Target Stores, 217 Wis.2d at 17-18 , 576 N.W.2d 545 .

2014Therefore, "[u]nder the great weight standard, we uphold an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute if it is not contrary to the clear meaning of the statute, even if we conclude another interpretation is more reasonable." Bunker, 257 Wis. 2d 255, ¶ 26 .

2011Both turn on whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the meaning or purpose of the regulation or statute." Id. (citations omitted). ¶ 12.

2011Volvo Trucks N. Am. v. DOT, 2010 WI 15, ¶¶ 11-13 , 323 Wis. 2d 294 , 779 N.W.2d 423 .

2011Volvo Trucks N. Am. v. DOT, 2010 WI 15, ¶¶ 11-13 , 323 Wis. 2d 294 , 779 N.W.2d 423 .

2011Judge Dykman filed a dissenting opinion in which he opined that he would give great weight deference to LIRC, and under this great weight standard, ''LIRC was entitled to believe that no useful purpose would be served by requiring Swenson to take an extended overnight trip when his future employment would have nothing to do with that type of driving." deBoer, 324 Wis. 2d 485, ¶ 34 .

2009Gilbert v. LIRC, 2008 WI App 173 , ¶ 9, 315 Wis. 2d 726 , 762 N.W.2d 671 . ¶ 48.

2009Gilbert v. LIRC, 2008 WI App 173 , ¶ 9, 315 Wis. 2d 726 , 762 N.W.2d 671 . ¶ 48.

2009Gilbert v. LIRC, 2008 WI App 173 , ¶ 9, 315 Wis. 2d 726 , 762 N.W.2d 671 . ¶ 48.

2007However, "[d]espite the difference in terminology, the deference we give to an agency interpretation of its own rules is similar to the great weight standard applied to statutory interpretations." Marder, 276 Wis.2d 186 , ¶ 27 n. 3, 687 N.W.2d 832 .

2007However, "[d] espite the difference in terminology, the deference we give to an agency interpretation of its own rules is similar to the great weight standard applied to statutory interpretations." Marder, 276 Wis. 2d 186 , ¶ 27 n.3.

2006STAT. § 227.57(10). ¶ 19 Franklin claims that the great-weight standard should be applied because policy decisions are inextricably part of the basis for the agency's decision. "[W]hen a legal question calls for value and policy judgments that require the expertise and experience of an agency, the agency's decision, although not controlling, is given great weight deference." Brown v. LIRC, 2003 WI 142, ¶ 16 , 267 Wis.2d 31 , 671 N.W.2d 279 . ¶ 20 We conclude the PSC's decision will be reviewed under the due-weight standard.

2006STAT. § 227.57(10). ¶ 19 Franklin claims that the great-weight standard should be applied because policy decisions are inextricably part of the basis for the agency's decision. "[W]hen a legal question calls for value and policy judgments that require the expertise and experience of an agency, the agency's decision, although not controlling, is given great weight deference." Brown v. LIRC, 2003 WI 142, ¶ 16 , 267 Wis.2d 31 , 671 N.W.2d 279 . ¶ 20 We conclude the PSC's decision will be reviewed under the due-weight standard.

2005Id. ķ42 This court applies an intermediate level of deference, "known as `due weight' or `great bearing[,]'" id., ķ33 (quoting Kelley Co., 172 Wis. 2d at 244 ), where "`the agency has some experience in an area, but has not developed the expertise which necessarily places it in a better position to make judgments regarding the interpretation of the statute than a court.'" Id. (quoting UFE, 201 Wis. 2d at 286 ).

2005Id. ķ42 This court applies an intermediate level of deference, "known as `due weight' or `great bearing[,]'" id., ķ33 (quoting Kelley Co., 172 Wis. 2d at 244 ), where "`the agency has some experience in an area, but has not developed the expertise which necessarily places it in a better position to make judgments regarding the interpretation of the statute than a court.'" Id. (quoting UFE, 201 Wis. 2d at 286 ).

2004Id.

2004Under the great weight standard, an agency's interpretation of a statute will be upheld provided that it is "reasonable and not contrary to the clear meaning of the statute, . . . even if the court finds that another interpretation is more reasonable." Hutson, 263 Wis. 2d 612, ¶ 32 ; UFE, 201 Wis. 2d at 286-87 . ¶ 15.

2004Under the great weight standard, an agency's interpretation of a statute will be upheld provided that it is "reasonable and not contrary to the clear meaning of the statute, ... even if the court finds *74 that another interpretation is more reasonable." Hutson, 263 Wis. 2d 612, ¶ 32 ; UFE, 201 Wis. 2d at 286-87 . [4, 5] ¶ 15.

2004Beverly Enters., Inc. v. LIRC, 2002 WI App 23, ¶ 18 , 250 Wis. 2d 246 , 640 N.W.2d 518 . ¶ 20.

2004Beverly Enters., Inc. v. LIRC, 2002 WI App 23, ¶ 18 , 250 Wis. 2d 246 , 640 N.W.2d 518 . ¶ 20.

2002Lopez v. LIRC, 2002 WI App 63, ¶ 16 , 252 Wis. 2d 476 , 642 N.W.2d 561 . 11 Under the great weight standard, we uphold an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute if it is not contrary to the clear meaning of the statute, even if we conclude another interpretation is more reasonable.

2002Lopez v. LIRC, 2002 WI App 63, ¶ 16 , 252 Wis. 2d 476 , 642 N.W.2d 561 . 11 Under the great weight standard, we uphold an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute if it is not contrary to the clear meaning of the statute, even if we conclude another interpretation is more reasonable.

2002The complete dictionary definition of fringe benefits states: "[A]n employment benefit (as a pension, a paid holiday, or health insurance) granted by an employer that involves a money cost without affecting basic wage rates." [12] In its decision, WERC cited the following cases: Brown County, supra — seminar fees and bar dues, beeper pay, mileage reimbursement, casual day disability plan; City of Brookfield v. WERC, 153 Wis. 2d 238 (Ct. App. 1989) — health insurance benefits; Koenings v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 123 Wis. 2d 490 (Ct. App. 1985) — insurance (medical, dental[,] vision, life, t

2002We will uphold WERC's conclusion if it has "any rational basis." Blackhawk Teachers' Fed'n, 109 Wis. 2d at 424 .

2002We will uphold WERC's conclusion if it has "any rational *382 basis." Blackhawk Teachers' Fed'n, 109 Wis. 2d at 424 .

2002The complete dictionary definition of fringe benefits states: "[A]n employment benefit (as a pension, a paid holiday, or health insurance) granted by an employer that involves a money cost without affecting basic wage rates." [12] In its decision, WERC cited the following cases: Brown County, supra — seminar fees and bar dues, beeper pay, mileage reimbursement, casual day disability plan; City of Brookfield v. WERC, 153 Wis. 2d 238 (Ct. App. 1989) — health insurance benefits; Koenings v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 123 Wis. 2d 490 (Ct. App. 1985) — insurance (medical, dental[,] vision, life, t

2002The complete dictionary definition of fringe benefits states: "[A]n employment benefit (as a pension, a paid holiday, or health insurance) granted by an employer that involves a money cost without affecting basic wage rates." [12] In its decision, WERC cited the following cases: Brown County, supra — seminar fees and bar dues, beeper pay, mileage reimbursement, casual day disability plan; City of Brookfield v. WERC, 153 Wis. 2d 238 (Ct. App. 1989) — health insurance benefits; Koenings v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 123 Wis. 2d 490 (Ct. App. 1985) — insurance (medical, dental[,] vision, life, t

2002The complete dictionary definition of fringe benefits states: "[A]n employment benefit (as a pension, a paid holiday, or health insurance) granted by an employer that involves a money cost without affecting basic wage rates." [12] In its decision, WERC cited the following cases: Brown County, supra — seminar fees and bar dues, beeper pay, mileage reimbursement, casual day disability plan; City of Brookfield v. WERC, 153 Wis. 2d 238 (Ct. App. 1989) — health insurance benefits; Koenings v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 123 Wis. 2d 490 (Ct. App. 1985) — insurance (medical, dental[,] vision, life, t

2002Further, our analysis of this issue involves application of the great weight standard of review, and because the dissent does not give WERC's decision the great weight, or even the due weight, that should be accorded to it, we disagree with the dissent's conclusion. [11] The District points out that the court of appeals in Brown County Attorneys Association v. Brown County, 169 Wis. 2d 737 , 487 N.W.2d 312 (Ct. App. 1992), failed to cite the complete definition of "fringe benefits" from Webster's Third New International Dictionary.

2002Further, our analysis of this issue involves application of the great weight standard of review, and because the dissent does not give WERC's decision the great weight, or even the due weight, that should be accorded to it, we disagree with the dissent's conclusion. [11] The District points out that the court of appeals in Brown County Attorneys Association v. Brown County, 169 Wis. 2d 737 , 487 N.W.2d 312 (Ct. App. 1992), failed to cite the complete definition of "fringe benefits" from Webster's Third New International Dictionary.

2002The complete dictionary definition of fringe benefits states: "[A]n employment benefit (as a pension, a paid holiday, or health insurance) granted by an employer that involves a money cost without affecting basic wage rates." [12] In its decision, WERC cited the following cases: Brown County, supra — seminar fees and bar dues, beeper pay, mileage reimbursement, casual day disability plan; City of Brookfield v. WERC, 153 Wis. 2d 238 (Ct. App. 1989) — health insurance benefits; Koenings v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 123 Wis. 2d 490 (Ct. App. 1985) — insurance (medical, dental[,] vision, life, t

2002The complete dictionary definition of fringe benefits states: "[A]n employment benefit (as a pension, a paid holiday, or health insurance) granted by an employer that involves a money cost without affecting basic wage rates." [12] In its decision, WERC cited the following cases: Brown County, supra — seminar fees and bar dues, beeper pay, mileage reimbursement, casual day disability plan; City of Brookfield v. WERC, 153 Wis. 2d 238 (Ct. App. 1989) — health insurance benefits; Koenings v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 123 Wis. 2d 490 (Ct. App. 1985) — insurance (medical, dental[,] vision, life, t

2000It is applied when the agency is charged with administration of the statute at issue, the agency's interpretation is based on "its expertise or specialized knowledge," the interpretation provides "uniformity and consistency in the application of the statute," and the agency conclusion or interpretation is "long standing." If the foregoing criteria are met, we will sustain the agency's interpretation even if an equally or more reasonable interpretation is offered. *736 Sea View Estates Beach Club v. DNR, 223 Wis. 2d 138, 148-49 , 588 N.W.2d 667 (Ct. App. 1998) (citations omitted), review denied

2000It is applied when the agency is charged with administration of the statute at issue, the agency's interpretation is based on "its expertise or specialized knowledge," the interpretation provides "uniformity and consistency in the application of the statute," and the agency conclusion or interpretation is "long standing." If the foregoing criteria are met, we will sustain the agency's interpretation even if an equally or more reasonable interpretation is offered. *736 Sea View Estates Beach Club v. DNR, 223 Wis. 2d 138, 148-49 , 588 N.W.2d 667 (Ct. App. 1998) (citations omitted), review denied

1999Hagen, 210 Wis. 2d at 20 .