Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 227.20 (2026)
Filing of rules
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
227.20(1)(1) An agency shall file a certified copy of each rule it promulgates with the legislative reference bureau. No rule is valid until the certified copy has been filed. A certified copy shall be typed or duplicated on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper, leaving sufficient room for a stamp at the top of the first page. Forms that are filed need not comply with the specifications of this subsection. The agency shall also send a copy of each rule to the legislative reference bureau in an electronic format approved by the legislative reference bureau.
227.20(2)(2) The legislative reference bureau shall endorse the date and the time of filing on each certified copy filed under sub. (1). The bureau shall keep a file of all certified copies filed under sub. (1).
227.20(3)(3) Filing a certified copy of a rule with the legislative reference bureau creates a presumption of all of the following:
227.20(3)(b)(b) That the rule was filed and made available for public inspection on the date and time endorsed on it.
227.20(3)(c)(c) That all of the rule-making procedures required by this chapter were complied with, except as provided in s. 186.118 (2) (c) or (3) (b) 3.
227.20(3)(d)(d) That the text of the certified copy of the rule is the text as promulgated by the agency.
227.20 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See s. 902.03 for provision for judicial notice of administrative rules.
227.20 AnnotationGuidelines promulgated outside the context of one particular contested case do not qualify for exception to the requirement that all rules must be filed under s. 227.023 [now this section]. Here, failure to file the guideline as a rule did not deprive the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations of the authority to decide contested cases dealing with pregnancy leaves under the sex discrimination statute. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. DILHR, 68 Wis. 2d 345, 228 N.W.2d 649 (1975).
227.20 AnnotationSub. (3) directs a court to presume that the rule was duly promulgated by the agency and that all statutory rule-making procedures have been followed, including those pertaining to the preparation of a housing impact report. This section apparently creates a rebuttable presumption that a court is to presume that the agency that promulgated the rule followed the statute regarding housing reports, but a party challenging the rule may rebut that presumption. The statute also requires courts to respect the legislature’s role in reviewing and approving agency rules by presuming the validity of rules that have survived the legislature’s scrutiny. Wisconsin Realtors Ass’n v. PSC, 2015 WI 63, 363 Wis. 2d 430, 867 N.W.2d 364, 13-1407.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 122
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1945–2021 · leading case: Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 914 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. 2018).
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 914 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. 2018). “" (citing Wis. Stat. § 227.20 (2) (1973))). ¶16 When conditions support neither great weight nor due weight deference, we give the administrative agency's statutory interpretation no deference at all.”
Arrowhead United Teachers Org. v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 342 N.W.2d 709 (Wis. 1984). “[4] We then must refer to the, statutory standards for reviewing agency decisions, as contained in § 227.20, Stats., entitled "Scope of review.”
Wisconsin Realtors Ass'n v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wisconsin, 2015 WI 63 (Wis. 2015). “More specifically, Wis. Stat. § 227.20 (3) creates a presumption that a rule filed with the Legislative Reference Bureau was "duly promulgated" and that "all of the rule-making procedures required by [Chapter 227] were complied with.”
Wisconsin Ass'n of Mfrs. & Com., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 287 N.W.2d 844 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “[14] As recently summarized by the court: Sec. 227.20, Stats., review standards "[do] not allow a reviewing court to weigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of witnesses.”
City of La Crosse Police & Fire Comm'n v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 407 N.W.2d 510 (Wis. 1987). “(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.”
Aetna Life Ins. v. Mitchell, 303 N.W.2d 639 (Wis. 1981). “In 1975, with the enactment of sec. 227.20, Stats. 1979-80, the Wisconsin legislature has adopted this functional approach, albeit in a different context, namely judicial review of administrative decisions.”
Corroon & Black-Rutters & Roberts, Inc. v. Hosch, 325 N.W.2d 883 (Wis. 1982). “The legislature requires the administrative agency to make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law, sec. 227.10, Stats. 1979-80, and provides that a reviewing court shall separately treat disputed agency interpretations of law and determinations of fact, sec.”
Samens v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 345 N.W.2d 432 (Wis. 1984). “" [7] Once again, we find that sec. 227.20, Stats. (1973), applies, because the alleged discrimination occurred in 1975.”
Boynton Cab Co. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 291 N.W.2d 850 (Wis. 1980). “The final question is whether that burden of proof was satisfied by reliance upon federal standards involving the federal motor carrier safety regulations.”
Seebach v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 295 N.W.2d 753 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “Section 227.20, Stats., sets forth the scope of review trial courts have in reviewing separately questions of law, fact and procedure in agency decision making.”
West Bend Educ. Ass'n v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 357 N.W.2d 534 (Wis. 1984). “Sec. 227.20(10), Stats. 1979-80, provides that upon review of an agency’s determination, “due weight shall be accorded the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency involved.”
Gilbert v. State, Med. Examining Bd., 349 N.W.2d 68 (Wis. 1984). “” 8 We find that sec. 227.20, Stats. 1973, applies, because the alleged unprofessional conduct by Gilbert occurred in 197B.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(1) — 17 cases
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 914 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. 2018). “" (citing Wis. Stat. § 227.20 (2) (1973))). ¶16 When conditions support neither great weight nor due weight deference, we give the administrative agency's statutory interpretation no deference at all.”
Arrowhead United Teachers Org. v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 342 N.W.2d 709 (Wis. 1984). “[4] We then must refer to the, statutory standards for reviewing agency decisions, as contained in § 227.20, Stats., entitled "Scope of review.”
Gilbert v. State, Med. Examining Bd., 349 N.W.2d 68 (Wis. 1984). “” 8 We find that sec. 227.20, Stats. 1973, applies, because the alleged unprofessional conduct by Gilbert occurred in 197B.”
State Ex Rel. First Nat'l Bank of Wisconsin Rapids v. M & I Peoples Bank of Coloma, 263 N.W.2d 196 (Wis. 1978).
Wisconsin Realtors Ass'n v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wisconsin, 2015 WI 63 (Wis. 2015). “More specifically, Wis. Stat. § 227.20 (3) creates a presumption that a rule filed with the Legislative Reference Bureau was "duly promulgated" and that "all of the rule-making procedures required by [Chapter 227] were complied with.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(1)(a) — 1 case
Gregory C. Mallett v. LIRC (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(1)(b) — 1 case
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 914 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. 2018). “" (citing Wis. Stat. § 227.20 (2) (1973))). ¶16 When conditions support neither great weight nor due weight deference, we give the administrative agency's statutory interpretation no deference at all.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(10) — 17 cases
City of La Crosse Police & Fire Comm'n v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 407 N.W.2d 510 (Wis. 1987). “(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.”
Arrowhead United Teachers Org. v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 342 N.W.2d 709 (Wis. 1984). “[4] We then must refer to the, statutory standards for reviewing agency decisions, as contained in § 227.20, Stats., entitled "Scope of review.”
Richland Sch. Dist. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, Equal Rights Div., 498 N.W.2d 826 (Wis. 1993).
Wisconsin Ass'n of Mfrs. & Com., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 287 N.W.2d 844 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “[14] As recently summarized by the court: Sec. 227.20, Stats., review standards "[do] not allow a reviewing court to weigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of witnesses.”
Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 280 N.W.2d 142 (Wis. 1979).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(2) — 13 cases
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 914 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. 2018). “" (citing Wis. Stat. § 227.20 (2) (1973))). ¶16 When conditions support neither great weight nor due weight deference, we give the administrative agency's statutory interpretation no deference at all.”
Hilton Ex Rel. Pages Homeowners' Ass'n v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2006 WI 84 (Wis. 2006).
Boynton Cab Co. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 291 N.W.2d 850 (Wis. 1980). “The final question is whether that burden of proof was satisfied by reliance upon federal standards involving the federal motor carrier safety regulations.”
Hilton Ex Rel. Pages Homeowners' v. Dnr, 2006 WI 84 (Wis. 2006).
Dep't of Revenue v. Milwaukee Refining Corp., 257 N.W.2d 855 (Wis. 1977).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(3) — 3 cases
Corroon & Black-Rutters & Roberts, Inc. v. Hosch, 325 N.W.2d 883 (Wis. 1982). “The legislature requires the administrative agency to make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law, sec. 227.10, Stats. 1979-80, and provides that a reviewing court shall separately treat disputed agency interpretations of law and determinations of fact, sec.”
West Bend Educ. Ass'n v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 357 N.W.2d 534 (Wis. 1984). “Sec. 227.20(10), Stats. 1979-80, provides that upon review of an agency’s determination, “due weight shall be accorded the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency involved.”
Kathleen Papa v. DHS (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(3)(c) — 1 case
Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. DOR, 2020 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(4) — 3 cases
YMCA of Beloit v. Dep't of Revenue, 417 N.W.2d 39 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
Guthrie v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 331 N.W.2d 331 (Wis. 1983).
Seebach v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 295 N.W.2d 753 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “Section 227.20, Stats., sets forth the scope of review trial courts have in reviewing separately questions of law, fact and procedure in agency decision making.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(5) — 11 cases
Arrowhead United Teachers Org. v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 342 N.W.2d 709 (Wis. 1984). “[4] We then must refer to the, statutory standards for reviewing agency decisions, as contained in § 227.20, Stats., entitled "Scope of review.”
Cnty. of Milwaukee v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 407 N.W.2d 908 (Wis. 1987).
West Bend Educ. Ass'n v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 357 N.W.2d 534 (Wis. 1984). “Sec. 227.20(10), Stats. 1979-80, provides that upon review of an agency’s determination, “due weight shall be accorded the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency involved.”
City of La Crosse Police & Fire Comm'n v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 407 N.W.2d 510 (Wis. 1987). “(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.”
Wisconsin Bingo Supply & Equip. Co. v. Wisconsin Bingo Control Bd., 276 N.W.2d 716 (Wis. 1979).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(6) — 25 cases
City of La Crosse Police & Fire Comm'n v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 407 N.W.2d 510 (Wis. 1987). “(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.”
Corroon & Black-Rutters & Roberts, Inc. v. Hosch, 325 N.W.2d 883 (Wis. 1982). “The legislature requires the administrative agency to make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law, sec. 227.10, Stats. 1979-80, and provides that a reviewing court shall separately treat disputed agency interpretations of law and determinations of fact, sec.”
Wisconsin Ass'n of Mfrs. & Com., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 287 N.W.2d 844 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “[14] As recently summarized by the court: Sec. 227.20, Stats., review standards "[do] not allow a reviewing court to weigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of witnesses.”
Citizens' Util. Bd. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 565 N.W.2d 554 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
Wisconsin Bingo Supply & Equip. Co. v. Wisconsin Bingo Control Bd., 276 N.W.2d 716 (Wis. 1979).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(8) — 12 cases
Arrowhead United Teachers Org. v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 342 N.W.2d 709 (Wis. 1984). “[4] We then must refer to the, statutory standards for reviewing agency decisions, as contained in § 227.20, Stats., entitled "Scope of review.”
Wisconsin Ass'n of Mfrs. & Com., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 287 N.W.2d 844 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “[14] As recently summarized by the court: Sec. 227.20, Stats., review standards "[do] not allow a reviewing court to weigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of witnesses.”
Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 298 N.W.2d 205 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980).
Holtz & Krause, Inc. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 270 N.W.2d 409 (Wis. 1978).
Wisconsin Ass'n of Mfrs. & Com., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 301 N.W.2d 247 (Wis. 1981).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(9) — 1 case
Guthrie v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 320 N.W.2d 213 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(l)(b) — 1 case
West Bend Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 438 N.W.2d 823 (Wis. 1989).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.20(l)(d) — 2 cases
West Bend Co. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 438 N.W.2d 823 (Wis. 1989).
Yao v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 2002 WI App 175 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002).
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.