Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 227.16 (2026)
When hearings required
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
227.16(1)(1) In addition to any preliminary public hearing and comment period held under s. 227.136, all rule making by an agency shall be preceded by notice and public hearing as provided in ss. 227.17 and 227.18, except as provided in sub. (2).
227.16(2)(b)(b) The proposed rule brings an existing rule into conformity with a statute that has been changed or enacted or with a controlling judicial decision.
227.16(2)(c)(c) The proposed rule is promulgated under s. 227.24, in which case the agency shall hold a hearing under s. 227.24 (4).
227.16(2)(d)(d) The proposed rule is being promulgated at the direction of the joint committee for review of administrative rules under s. 227.26 (2) (b).
227.16(2)(e)(e) The proposed rule, as submitted to the legislative council staff under s. 227.15 (1), is sent to the legislative reference bureau in an electronic format approved by the legislative reference bureau and published in the notice section of the register with a statement that the proposed rule will be promulgated without public hearing unless a petition is received by the agency within 30 days after publication of the notice, signed by any of the following:
227.16(2)(e)3.3. An association which is representative of a farm, labor, business or professional group that will be affected by the proposed rule.
227.16(3)(3) If the agency receives a petition under sub. (2) (e), it may not proceed with the proposed rule until after it has given notice and held a public hearing under ss. 227.17 and 227.18.
227.16(4)(4) The exemptions in sub. (2) do not apply if another statute specifically requires the agency to hold a hearing prior to promulgating the proposed rule under consideration.
227.16(5)(5) If a hearing is not required because of an exemption under sub. (2), the agency may hold a hearing on the proposed rule under ss. 227.17 and 227.18.
227.16 AnnotationThe purpose of a public hearing is to give interested parties not only a chance to be heard, but to have an influence in the final form of the regulations involved. That purpose would not be served if the adopted rules were required to be identical in form to those proposed before the hearing. HM Distributors of Milwaukee, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 55 Wis. 2d 261, 198 N.W.2d 598 (1972).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1944–2022 · leading case: Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 267 N.W.2d 609 (Wis. 1978).
Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 267 N.W.2d 609 (Wis. 1978). “*508 On November 9, 1976, the day the order was entered, WED and Peter Anderson (collectively referred to as WED), petitioned the circuit court for Dane county for review of the order, pursuant to sec. 227.16, Stats., on the ground that it did not comply with the Wisconsin…”
Shopper Advertiser, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 344 N.W.2d 115 (Wis. 1984). “2d 632 (1981), we observed: "Compliance with sec. 227.16, Stats., has, in the past, proved troublesome because sec.”
Cheryl M. Sorenson v. Richard A. Batchelder, 2016 WI 34 (Wis. 2016). “" ¶34 In Patterson, the court of appeals examined an entirely different statutory scheme, Wis. Stat. § 227.16 (1)(a) (1979-80), which at that time required that service be accomplished either by personal service or certified mail.”
Friends of the Black River Forest v. DNR, 2022 WI 52 (Wis. 2022). “Wis. Stat. § 227.16 (1) (1973–74). 21 No.”
All Star Rent a Car, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 2006 WI 85 (Wis. 2006). “The Sunnyview nursing home had failed to name and serve the Division of Nursing Home Forfeiture Appeals (DNHFA) located in the Department of Administration, as it was arguably required to do by then- Wis. Stat. § 227.16 (1) (1979-80), the predecessor to Wis.”
Sunnyview Vill., Inc. v. Dep't of Admin., 311 N.W.2d 632 (Wis. 1981). “Compliance with sec. 227.16, Stats., has, in the past, proved troublesome because sec.”
State Ex Rel. Unnamed Person No.1 v. State, 2003 WI 30 (Wis. 2003). “In Swan, when the writ petition was filed in the court of appeals, it was clear that the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Elections Board with a right of appeal from a final judgment of the circuit court to the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat.…”
Fox v. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 334 N.W.2d 532 (Wis. 1983). “Further, subject-matter jurisdiction can never attach to the intervenors’ claims because they cannot meet the strict filing requirements set out in sec. 227.16(1), Stats. Consequently, refusing to allow the intervenors to continue to press their claims here will not result in a…”
Jackson v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2006 WI App 97 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “It distinguished this requirement from the service and filing requirements in Wis. Stat. § 227.16 (1) (1971), observed that the faulty caption "in no way affected the subject matter jurisdiction [competency] 5 of the court *350 nor the grounds alleged for review," and concluded…”
Town of Ashwaubenon v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 125 N.W.2d 647 (Wis. 1963). “Even though there is a large hurdle confronting one who seeks to upset the order of a commission in performance of its legislative functions, it is preferable to allow such judicial review rather than to bar it entirely.”
Kegonsa Jt. Sanitary Dist. v. City of Stoughton, 274 N.W.2d 598 (Wis. 1979). “In view of this failure to comply with the timing requirements of sec. 227.16, Stats., there can be no question that this claim for review was properly dismissible for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Cudahy v. Dep't of Revenue, 224 N.W.2d 570 (Wis. 1974). “The plaintiffs commenced their petition for review within the time limit set by sec. 227.16, Stats. The reason the question arises is that counsel for the petitioners did not realize the department had to be served.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.16(1) — 22 cases
Shopper Advertiser, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 344 N.W.2d 115 (Wis. 1984). “2d 632 (1981), we observed: "Compliance with sec. 227.16, Stats., has, in the past, proved troublesome because sec.”
Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 267 N.W.2d 609 (Wis. 1978). “*508 On November 9, 1976, the day the order was entered, WED and Peter Anderson (collectively referred to as WED), petitioned the circuit court for Dane county for review of the order, pursuant to sec. 227.16, Stats., on the ground that it did not comply with the Wisconsin…”
Fox v. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 334 N.W.2d 532 (Wis. 1983). “Further, subject-matter jurisdiction can never attach to the intervenors’ claims because they cannot meet the strict filing requirements set out in sec. 227.16(1), Stats. Consequently, refusing to allow the intervenors to continue to press their claims here will not result in a…”
Sunnyview Vill., Inc. v. Dep't of Admin., 311 N.W.2d 632 (Wis. 1981). “Compliance with sec. 227.16, Stats., has, in the past, proved troublesome because sec.”
Friends of the Black River Forest v. DNR, 2022 WI 52 (Wis. 2022). “Wis. Stat. § 227.16 (1) (1973–74). 21 No.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.16(1)(a) — 2 cases
Cheryl M. Sorenson v. Richard A. Batchelder, 2016 WI 34 (Wis. 2016). “" ¶34 In Patterson, the court of appeals examined an entirely different statutory scheme, Wis. Stat. § 227.16 (1)(a) (1979-80), which at that time required that service be accomplished either by personal service or certified mail.”
Hedrich v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Of Wisconsin, 2001 WI App 228 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.16(2) — 1 case
Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 267 N.W.2d 609 (Wis. 1978). “*508 On November 9, 1976, the day the order was entered, WED and Peter Anderson (collectively referred to as WED), petitioned the circuit court for Dane county for review of the order, pursuant to sec. 227.16, Stats., on the ground that it did not comply with the Wisconsin…”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.16(l)(a) — 4 cases
Cheryl M. Sorenson v. Richard A. Batchelder, 2016 WI 34 (Wis. 2016). “" ¶34 In Patterson, the court of appeals examined an entirely different statutory scheme, Wis. Stat. § 227.16 (1)(a) (1979-80), which at that time required that service be accomplished either by personal service or certified mail.”
Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, Inc. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 381 N.W.2d 318 (Wis. 1986).
YMCA of Beloit v. Dep't of Revenue, 417 N.W.2d 39 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
Tatum v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 392 N.W.2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.16(l)(c) — 1 case
Cnty. of Milwaukee v. State, Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 418 N.W.2d 35 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
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.