Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 227.42 (2026)
Right to hearing
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
227.42(1)(1) In addition to any other right provided by law, any person filing a written request with an agency for hearing shall have the right to a hearing which shall be treated as a contested case if:
227.42(1)(a)(a) A substantial interest of the person is injured in fact or threatened with injury by agency action or inaction;
227.42(1)(b)(b) There is no evidence of legislative intent that the interest is not to be protected;
227.42(1)(c)(c) The injury to the person requesting a hearing is different in kind or degree from injury to the general public caused by the agency action or inaction; and
227.42(2)(2) Any denial of a request for a hearing shall be in writing, shall state the reasons for denial, and is an order reviewable under this chapter. If the agency does not enter an order disposing of the request for hearing within 20 days from the date of filing, the request shall be deemed denied as of the end of the 20-day period.
227.42(3)(3) This section does not apply to rule-making proceedings or rehearings, or to actions where hearings at the discretion of the agency are expressly authorized by law.
227.42(5)(5) Except as provided under s. 289.27 (1), this section does not apply to any part of the process for approving a feasibility report, plan of operation or license under subch. III of ch. 289 or s. 291.23, 291.25, 291.29 or 291.31, any decision by the department of natural resources relating to the environmental impact of a proposed action under ch. 289 or 291 or ss. 292.31 and 292.35, or any part of the process of negotiation and arbitration under s. 289.33.
227.42(6)(6) This section does not apply to a decision issued or a hearing conducted under s. 291.87.
227.42 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 414; 1977 c. 418; Stats. 1977 s. 227.064; 1979 c. 221; 1981 c. 374; 1983 a. 298; 1985 a. 182 s. 28; Stats. 1985 s. 227.42; 1995 a. 227; 2009 a. 219; 2013 a. 20; 2013 a. 116 s. 31; 2017 a. 134.
227.42 AnnotationA person who satisfies the conditions under sub. (1) is entitled to a hearing whether or not that person has any “other right provided by law.” Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District v. DNR, 126 Wis. 2d 63, 375 N.W.2d 648 (1985).
227.42 AnnotationAn applicant denied a racetrack license had a right to a contested case hearing. Metropolitan Greyhound Management Corp. v. Wisconsin Racing Board, 157 Wis. 2d 678, 460 N.W.2d 802 (Ct. App. 1990).
227.42 AnnotationSub. (1) does not grant a right to a contested case hearing regarding the need for an environmental impact statement. North Lake Management District v. DNR, 182 Wis. 2d 500, 513 N.W.2d 703 (Ct. App. 1994).
227.42 AnnotationSub. (1) (d) provides authority for agencies to develop appropriate summary disposition procedures if there are no disputes of material fact. Balele v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 223 Wis. 2d 739, 589 N.W.2d 418 (Ct. App. 1998), 98-1432.
227.42 AnnotationWhen an administrative law judge’s decision did not provide notice of the 30-day time period under s. 227.53 (1) (a) 2. for petitioning for judicial review in a contested case, the six-month default limitation adopted under Hedrich, 2001 WI App 228, applied. Habermehl Electric, Inc. v. DOT, 2003 WI App 39, 260 Wis. 2d 466, 659 N.W.2d 463, 02-1573.
227.42 AnnotationSub. (1) does not provide that a single factual dispute related to one issue entitles a party to a contested case hearing on every issue raised by the party. The only reasonable interpretation of sub. (1) is that a petitioner is entitled to a contested case hearing only on those specific issues that involve disputes of material fact. Haase-Hardie v. DNR, 2014 WI App 103, 357 Wis. 2d 442, 855 N.W.2d 443, 13-2827.
227.42 AnnotationDepartment of Natural Resources master planning regulations require some form of public participation in the master planning process but also give the department discretion over the form of that public participation. Therefore, the exception found in sub. (3) for “actions where hearings at the discretion of the agency are expressly authorized by law” applies, and the petitioner has no right to seek a contested case hearing under sub. (1) on the master plan. Friends of Blue Mound State Park v. DNR, 2025 WI App 63, 418 Wis. 2d. 450, 27 N.W.3d 228, 24-0577.
227.42 AnnotationMilwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District v. DNR: Expanding the Scope of State Agency Actions Covered by Contested Case Hearings. Donius. 1986 WLR 963.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Marder v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisc. Sys., 2005 WI 159 (Wis. 2005).
Marder v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisc. Sys., 2005 WI 159 (Wis. 2005). “Marder contends that the court of appeals erred because he was entitled to the procedures applicable to contested cases under the criteria set out in *266 Wis. Stat. § 227.42 (1). [7] The Board disagrees, and contends that the legislature created Wis.”
Jamerson v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 2013 WI 7 (Wis. 2013). “Jamerson has only a "qualified right" to a hearing and that she must meet the statutory requirements under Wis. Stat. § 227.42 (1) to get a contested case hearing.”
Shearer v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 443 N.W.2d 669 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “We see the dispositive issue as whether the department was required to grant Shearer's request for a "contested case hearing" pursuant to sec. 227.42, Stats. [1] Because we conclude that it was, we reverse the judgment and order insofar as they affirm the department's *156 lake…”
Marder v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 2005 WI 159 (Wis. 2005). “Marder contends that the court of appeals erred because he was entitled to the procedures applicable to contested cases under the criteria set out in *266 Wis. Stat. § 227.42 (1). 7 The Board disagrees, and contends that the legislature created Wis.”
North Lake Mgmt. Dist. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 513 N.W.2d 703 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “In response to this decision, the District filed a petition with the DNR requesting a contested case hearing under § 227.42, Stats. Section 227.42(1) provides that a person shall have the right to a contested case hearing if: (a) A substantial interest of the person is injured…”
Metro. Greyhound Mgmt. Corp. v. Wisconsin Racing Bd., 460 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “Before the order was issued, Shearer and others owning land abutting the lake had requested a contested-case hearing based on, among other authority, sec. 227.42, Stats. Id., 151 Wis. 2d at 156-157 , 443 N.”
Habermehl Elec., Inc. v. State Dep't of Transp., 2003 WI App 39 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “DOT also relies on Wis. Stat. § 227.42 . This section specifies the circumstances under which there is a right, in addition to any other provided by law, to a hearing upon request, and such hearing is to be treated as a contested case.”
Sterlingworth Condo. Ass'n v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources, 556 N.W.2d 791 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “Here, Sterlingworth submitted its petition for review under § 227.42, Stats., and therefore assumed the burden of proof.”
Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, Inc. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 440 N.W.2d 337 (Wis. 1989). “The Judicial Council notes accompanying the bill stated that the provision was a supplement “intended to fill in some gaps where hearing rights ought to be provided but there is no specific authorization in the statutes.” Judicial Council Notes to 1975 Wis.”
Cox v. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 517 N.W.2d 526 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “This is compatible with the provision providing that § 227.42, Stats., does not apply to DHSS decisions under ch.”
Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. State, 2011 WI 54 (Wis. 2011). “Wis. Stat. § 227.42 (1). If the petition is granted, citizens may present evidence during the hearing, which becomes part of the record on review.”
Haase-Hardie v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2014 WI App 103 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Consequently, to obtain a contested case hearing on Preferred Sands' air pollution control permits, Haase-Hardie had to establish that she "[met] the requirements of s.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.42(1) — 18 cases
Jamerson v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 2013 WI 7 (Wis. 2013). “Jamerson has only a "qualified right" to a hearing and that she must meet the statutory requirements under Wis. Stat. § 227.42 (1) to get a contested case hearing.”
Marder v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisc. Sys., 2005 WI 159 (Wis. 2005). “Marder contends that the court of appeals erred because he was entitled to the procedures applicable to contested cases under the criteria set out in *266 Wis. Stat. § 227.42 (1). [7] The Board disagrees, and contends that the legislature created Wis.”
Metro. Greyhound Mgmt. Corp. v. Wisconsin Racing Bd., 460 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “Before the order was issued, Shearer and others owning land abutting the lake had requested a contested-case hearing based on, among other authority, sec. 227.42, Stats. Id., 151 Wis. 2d at 156-157 , 443 N.”
Marder v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 2005 WI 159 (Wis. 2005). “Marder contends that the court of appeals erred because he was entitled to the procedures applicable to contested cases under the criteria set out in *266 Wis. Stat. § 227.42 (1). 7 The Board disagrees, and contends that the legislature created Wis.”
North Lake Mgmt. Dist. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 513 N.W.2d 703 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “In response to this decision, the District filed a petition with the DNR requesting a contested case hearing under § 227.42, Stats. Section 227.42(1) provides that a person shall have the right to a contested case hearing if: (a) A substantial interest of the person is injured…”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.42(1)(a) — 1 case
Helnore v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2005 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.42(1)(d) — 3 cases
Balele v. Wisconsin Pers. Comm'n, 589 N.W.2d 418 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
Haase-Hardie v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2014 WI App 103 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Consequently, to obtain a contested case hearing on Preferred Sands' air pollution control permits, Haase-Hardie had to establish that she "[met] the requirements of s.”
Russell Beckman v. Wisconsin Crime Victims Rights Bd. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.42(1m) — 1 case
Shearer v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 443 N.W.2d 669 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “We see the dispositive issue as whether the department was required to grant Shearer's request for a "contested case hearing" pursuant to sec. 227.42, Stats. [1] Because we conclude that it was, we reverse the judgment and order insofar as they affirm the department's *156 lake…”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.42(2) — 1 case
Shearer v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 443 N.W.2d 669 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “We see the dispositive issue as whether the department was required to grant Shearer's request for a "contested case hearing" pursuant to sec. 227.42, Stats. [1] Because we conclude that it was, we reverse the judgment and order insofar as they affirm the department's *156 lake…”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.42(3) — 8 cases
Marder v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisc. Sys., 2005 WI 159 (Wis. 2005). “Marder contends that the court of appeals erred because he was entitled to the procedures applicable to contested cases under the criteria set out in *266 Wis. Stat. § 227.42 (1). [7] The Board disagrees, and contends that the legislature created Wis.”
Marder v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 2005 WI 159 (Wis. 2005). “Marder contends that the court of appeals erred because he was entitled to the procedures applicable to contested cases under the criteria set out in *266 Wis. Stat. § 227.42 (1). 7 The Board disagrees, and contends that the legislature created Wis.”
North Lake Mgmt. Dist. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 513 N.W.2d 703 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “In response to this decision, the District filed a petition with the DNR requesting a contested case hearing under § 227.42, Stats. Section 227.42(1) provides that a person shall have the right to a contested case hearing if: (a) A substantial interest of the person is injured…”
Habermehl Elec., Inc. v. State Dep't of Transp., 2003 WI App 39 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “DOT also relies on Wis. Stat. § 227.42 . This section specifies the circumstances under which there is a right, in addition to any other provided by law, to a hearing upon request, and such hearing is to be treated as a contested case.”
Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, Inc. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 440 N.W.2d 337 (Wis. 1989). “The Judicial Council notes accompanying the bill stated that the provision was a supplement “intended to fill in some gaps where hearing rights ought to be provided but there is no specific authorization in the statutes.” Judicial Council Notes to 1975 Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.42(5) — 1 case
Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, Inc. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 440 N.W.2d 337 (Wis. 1989). “The Judicial Council notes accompanying the bill stated that the provision was a supplement “intended to fill in some gaps where hearing rights ought to be provided but there is no specific authorization in the statutes.” Judicial Council Notes to 1975 Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.42(l)(a) — 1 case
Haase-Hardie v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2014 WI App 103 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014). “Consequently, to obtain a contested case hearing on Preferred Sands' air pollution control permits, Haase-Hardie had to establish that she "[met] the requirements of s.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.42(l)(c) — 1 case
North Lake Mgmt. Dist. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 513 N.W.2d 703 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “In response to this decision, the District filed a petition with the DNR requesting a contested case hearing under § 227.42, Stats. Section 227.42(1) provides that a person shall have the right to a contested case hearing if: (a) A substantial interest of the person is injured…”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.42(l)(d) — 1 case
Jamerson v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 2013 WI 7 (Wis. 2013). “Jamerson has only a "qualified right" to a hearing and that she must meet the statutory requirements under Wis. Stat. § 227.42 (1) to get a contested case hearing.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.42(lm) — 1 case
Shearer v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 443 N.W.2d 669 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “We see the dispositive issue as whether the department was required to grant Shearer's request for a "contested case hearing" pursuant to sec. 227.42, Stats. [1] Because we conclude that it was, we reverse the judgment and order insofar as they affirm the department's *156 lake…”
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.