Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 227.12 (2026)
Petition for rules
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
227.12(1)(1) Unless the right to petition for a rule is restricted by statute to a designated group or unless the form of procedure for a petition is otherwise prescribed by statute, a municipality, an association which is representative of a farm, labor, business or professional group, or any 5 or more persons having an interest in a rule may petition an agency requesting it to promulgate a rule.
227.12(3)(3) Except as provided in sub. (4), within a reasonable period of time after the receipt of a petition under this section, an agency shall either deny the petition in writing or proceed with the requested rule making. If the agency denies the petition, it shall promptly notify the petitioner of the denial, including a brief statement of the reason for the denial. If the agency proceeds with the requested rule making, it shall follow the procedures prescribed in this subchapter.
227.12(4)(4) If a petition to the department of revenue establishes that the department has established a standard by which it is construing a state tax statute, but has not promulgated a rule to adopt the standard or published the standard in a manner that is available to the public, the department shall, as provided under s. 227.135, submit a statement of the scope of the proposed rule to the department of administration no later than 90 days after receiving the petition. No later than 270 days after the statement is approved by the governor, the department shall submit the proposed rule in final draft form to the governor for the governor’s approval, as provided under s. 227.185. At the department’s request, the governor or the department of administration may, at any time prior to the expiration of any deadline specified in this subsection, extend the time for submitting the statement or proposed rule in draft form for any period not to exceed 60 days. The governor or the department of administration may grant more than one extension under this subsection, but the total period for all such extensions may not exceed 120 days. The rule need not adhere to the standard established by the department, but shall address the same circumstances as the standard addresses. If the department fails to comply with this subsection, any of the petitioners may commence an action in circuit court to compel the department’s compliance. If an action is commenced under this subsection, the court may compel the department to provide information to the court related to the degree to which the department is enforcing the standard, except that the information provided by the department shall not disclose the identity of any person who is not a party to the action.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1948–2002 · leading case: Zinn v. State, 334 N.W.2d 67 (Wis. 1983).
Zinn v. State, 334 N.W.2d 67 (Wis. 1983). “The state argues that pursuant to sec. 227.12(2), Stats. 1975, the ruling was suspended on August 29, 1977, when the rehearing was granted and had no effect after this point.”
Vill. of Prentice v. Transp. Comm'n, 365 N.W.2d 899 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “2 The 20-day limit of § 227.12(1), Stats., for seeking a rehearing does not apply to a §195.”
Wisconsin Tel. Co. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 228 N.W.2d 649 (Wis. 1975). “The parties agree that under sec. 227.12, Stats., the telephone company was entitled to “argue .”
Kammes v. State, Mining Inv. & Local Impact Fund Bd., 340 N.W.2d 206 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). “The twenty-day limit on petitions for rehearing under sec. 227.12, Stats., therefore does not apply to the county’s “appeal for reconsideration” by the board.”
City of Appleton v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 226 N.W.2d 497 (Wis. 1975). “The issue thus raised involves a question concerning the scope of the requirements provided in sec. 227.12, Stats., which provides in relevant portion: "227.”
Gateway City Transfer Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 34 N.W.2d 238 (Wis. 1948). “” Sec. 227.12, Stats., provides: “Whenever-in a contested case it is impracticable for the members of the agency who participate in the decision to hear or read all the evidence, the final decision shall not be made until a summary of the evidence prepared by the person…”
Schwartz v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2002 WI App 255 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “1985), the court of appeals addressed Wis. Stat. § 227.12 (3) (1983-84), which currently is numbered Wis.”
Voight v. Washington Island Ferry Line, Inc., 255 N.W.2d 545 (Wis. 1977). “First, the court considered the finding that the operations of the objector “may be seriously affected by the proposed operations of the applicant” was highly speculative and unsupported in the record.”
Sheely v. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 442 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 1989). “" Sheely then requested a rehearing of the decision by DHSS pursuant to sec. 227.12, Stats. This request was denied by "a final administrative decision of the [DHSS]'.”
Omernick v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 301 N.W.2d 437 (Wis. 1981). “The petitioners contend that good cause was shown under sec. 227.12(7), Stats., for the circuit court to consider the search warrant issue.”
Rusk Cnty. Citizen Action Grp., Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 552 N.W.2d 110 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “*5 RCCAG presented a petition to the DNR pursuant to § 227.12, Stats., requesting that the DNR "promulgate rules that ban the mining of sulfide mineral deposits in the state of Wisconsin.”
Hansen Storage Co. v. Wisconsin Transp. Comm'n, 291 N.W.2d 534 (Wis. 1980). “” This section replaced sec. 227.12, Stats. 1973, which then provided: “Examination of evidence by agency.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.12(1) — 2 cases
Kammes v. State, Mining Inv. & Local Impact Fund Bd., 340 N.W.2d 206 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983). “The twenty-day limit on petitions for rehearing under sec. 227.12, Stats., therefore does not apply to the county’s “appeal for reconsideration” by the board.”
Vill. of Prentice v. Transp. Comm'n, 365 N.W.2d 899 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “2 The 20-day limit of § 227.12(1), Stats., for seeking a rehearing does not apply to a §195.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.12(2) — 1 case
Zinn v. State, 334 N.W.2d 67 (Wis. 1983). “The state argues that pursuant to sec. 227.12(2), Stats. 1975, the ruling was suspended on August 29, 1977, when the rehearing was granted and had no effect after this point.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.12(3) — 1 case
Vill. of Prentice v. Transp. Comm'n, 365 N.W.2d 899 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “2 The 20-day limit of § 227.12(1), Stats., for seeking a rehearing does not apply to a §195.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.12(6) — 1 case
Vill. of Prentice v. Transp. Comm'n, 365 N.W.2d 899 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “2 The 20-day limit of § 227.12(1), Stats., for seeking a rehearing does not apply to a §195.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.12(7) — 1 case
Omernick v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 301 N.W.2d 437 (Wis. 1981). “The petitioners contend that good cause was shown under sec. 227.12(7), Stats., for the circuit court to consider the search warrant issue.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.