Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 227.45 (2026)
Evidence and official notice
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
227.45(1)(1) Except as provided in s. 901.05, an agency or hearing examiner shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence. The agency or hearing examiner shall admit all testimony having reasonable probative value, but shall exclude immaterial, irrelevant or unduly repetitious testimony or evidence that is inadmissible under s. 901.05. The agency or hearing examiner shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law. Basic principles of relevancy, materiality and probative force shall govern the proof of all questions of fact. Objections to evidentiary offers and offers of proof of evidence not admitted may be made and shall be noted in the record.
227.45(2)(2) All evidence, including records and documents in the possession of the agency or hearing examiner of which the agency or hearing examiner desires to avail himself or herself, shall be duly offered and made a part of the record in the case. Every party shall be afforded adequate opportunity to rebut or offer countervailing evidence.
227.45(3)(3) An agency or hearing examiner may take official notice of any generally recognized fact or any established technical or scientific fact; but parties shall be notified either before or during the hearing or by full reference in preliminary reports or otherwise, of the facts so noticed, and they shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the validity of the official notice.
227.45(4)(4) An agency or hearing examiner shall take official notice of all rules which have been published in the Wisconsin administrative code or register.
227.45(5)(5) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily available. Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original.
227.45(6)(6) A party may conduct cross-examinations reasonably required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.
227.45(6m)(6m) A party’s attorney of record may issue a subpoena to compel the attendance of a witness or the production of evidence. A subpoena issued by an attorney must be in substantially the same form as provided in s. 805.07 (4) and must be served in the manner provided in s. 805.07 (5). The attorney shall, at the time of issuance, send a copy of the subpoena to the appeal tribunal or other representative of the department responsible for conducting the proceeding.
227.45(7)(7) In any class 2 proceeding, each party shall have the right, prior to the date set for hearing, to take and preserve evidence as provided in ch. 804. Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought in any class 2 proceeding, and for good cause shown, the hearing examiner may make any order in accordance with s. 804.01 which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. In any class 1 or class 3 proceeding, an agency may by rule permit the taking and preservation of evidence, but in every such proceeding the taking and preservation of evidence shall be permitted with respect to a witness:
227.45(7)(b)(b) Who is about to go out of the state, not intending to return in time for the hearing;
227.45(7)(c)(c) Who is so sick, infirm or aged as to make it probable that the witness will not be able to attend the hearing; or
227.45(7)(d)(d) Who is a member of the legislature, if any committee of the same or the house of which the witness is a member is in session, provided the witness waives his or her privilege.
227.45 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 94 s. 3; 1975 c. 414 ss. 9, 10, 12; Stats. 1975 s. 227.08; 1977 c. 277, 418, 447; 1979 c. 162, 208; 1985 a. 182 s. 33; Stats. 1985 s. 227.45; 1989 a. 139; 1991 a. 269; 2007 a. 1.
227.45 AnnotationIf there is evidence that a rule promulgated by an administrative agency is founded on a particular source, it is reasonable to resort to the source to interpret the rule, but it is the course of reliance on the source in the uniform administrative interpretation of the rule that gives the interpretation validity and not the source itself. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. DILHR, 62 Wis. 2d 327, 214 N.W.2d 587 (1974).
227.45 AnnotationAdmission of evidence by an administrative agency is a matter of discretion. Stein v. Psychology Examining Board, 2003 WI App 147, 265 Wis. 2d 781, 668 N.W.2d 112, 02-2726.
227.45 AnnotationThis section requires very relaxed rules of evidence. A similar relaxation of the statutory rules of evidence is required as to documents. Sub. (5) does not require certified copies of medical records. Rutherford v. LIRC, 2008 WI App 66, 309 Wis. 2d 498, 752 N.W.2d 897, 06-3110.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Gehin v. Wisconsin Grp. Ins. Bd., 2005 WI 16 (Wis. 2005).
Gehin v. Wisconsin Grp. Ins. Bd., 2005 WI 16 (Wis. 2005). “The statute governing admission of evidence in contested cases before administrative agencies, Wis. Stat. § 227.45 (1), explicitly states, [A]n agency or hearing examiner shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence.”
Rutherford v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2008 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “§ 227.45, Evidence and official notice, states in pertinent part: (1) .”
Rock-Koshkonong Lake Dist. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2013 WI 74 (Wis. 2013). “" Wis. Stat. § 227.45 (1). 22 No. 2008AP1523 ¶45 Thus, the Decision closes with a conclusion of law that "the DNR's decision [to reject the District's proposed higher water levels] .”
AllEnergy Corp. v. Trempealeau Cnty. Env't & Land Use Comm., 2017 WI 52 (Wis. 2017). “§ 227.45 (1), states that an agency is not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence and adopts a "reasonable probative value test" for admission of testimony: [A]n agency or hearing examiner shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence.”
State v. Brown, 2005 WI 29 (Wis. 2005). “227, Wis. Stat. § 227.45 (1) (2003-04), or in proceedings before a condemnation commission, Wis.”
Currie v. State Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 565 N.W.2d 253 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “01 is a statutory rule of evidence, which § 227.45(1), Stats., 5 provides shall not *394 bind the hearing examiner in fact finding hearings for claims such as age and sex discrimination.”
Hacker v. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 541 N.W.2d 766 (Wis. 1995). “Under Wis. Stat. § 227.45 (4) (1993-94), [7] the hearing examiner is required to take notice of the provisions of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.”
Stein v. State Psychology Examining Bd., 2003 WI App 147 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Stein acknowledges that the ALJ is not governed by the rules of evidence but instead by Wis. Stat. § 227.45 (1) (2001-02), 5 which provides: *798 An agency or hearing examiner shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence.”
Williams v. Hous. Auth. of Milwaukee, 2010 WI App 14 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “Certainly, hearsay is admissible at informal Housing Authority hearings pursuant to 24 C.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2000 WI App 272 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “§ 227.45(1). The question, however, is not whether Schneider should have been permitted to offer his opinion as to what caused his outburst at the employee meeting, but whether his lay opinion on the matter is sufficient to sustain his burden of proof on the issue of causation.”
Kitten v. State Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2001 WI App 218 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Wis. Stat. § 227.45 (1) (an administrative hearing examiner is to apply "[b]asic principles of *675 relevancy, materiality and probative force").”
Yao v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 2002 WI App 175 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “Wis. Stat. § 227.45 (1). Thus, a "spoliation rule" developed and applied in case law involving civil litigation does not necessarily govern the outcome here.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.45(1) — 8 cases
Gehin v. Wisconsin Grp. Ins. Bd., 2005 WI 16 (Wis. 2005). “The statute governing admission of evidence in contested cases before administrative agencies, Wis. Stat. § 227.45 (1), explicitly states, [A]n agency or hearing examiner shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence.”
Currie v. State Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 565 N.W.2d 253 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “01 is a statutory rule of evidence, which § 227.45(1), Stats., 5 provides shall not *394 bind the hearing examiner in fact finding hearings for claims such as age and sex discrimination.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2000 WI App 272 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “§ 227.45(1). The question, however, is not whether Schneider should have been permitted to offer his opinion as to what caused his outburst at the employee meeting, but whether his lay opinion on the matter is sufficient to sustain his burden of proof on the issue of causation.”
Vill. of Menomonee Falls v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 412 N.W.2d 505 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
Nw. Insulation v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 432 N.W.2d 620 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.45(5) — 1 case
Rutherford v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2008 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “§ 227.45, Evidence and official notice, states in pertinent part: (1) .”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.45(6m) — 1 case
Metro. Greyhound Mgmt. Corp. v. Wisconsin Racing Bd., 460 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.45(7) — 1 case
Wisconsin Dep't of Transp. v. Wisconsin Pers. Comm'n, 500 N.W.2d 664 (Wis. 1993).
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.