Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 227.47 (2026)
Decisions
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
227.47(1)(1) Except as provided in sub. (2), every proposed or final decision of an agency or hearing examiner following a hearing and every final decision of an agency shall be in writing accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings of fact shall consist of a concise and separate statement of the ultimate conclusions upon each material issue of fact without recital of evidence. Every proposed or final decision shall include a list of the names and addresses of all persons who appeared before the agency in the proceeding who are considered parties for purposes of review under s. 227.53. The agency shall by rule establish a procedure for determination of parties.
227.47(2)(2) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a proposed or final decision of the employment relations commission, hearing examiner or arbitrator concerning an appeal of the decision of the administrator of the division of personnel management in the department of administration made under s. 230.09 (2) (a) or (d) shall not be accompanied by findings of fact or conclusions of law. If within 30 days after the commission issues a decision in such an appeal either party files a petition for judicial review of the decision under s. 227.53 and files a written notice with the commission that the party has filed such a petition, the commission shall issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law within 90 days after receipt of the notice. The court shall stay the proceedings pending receipt of the findings and conclusions.
227.47 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 414 s. 15; 1977 c. 418; 1979 c. 208; 1985 a. 182 ss. 33r, 57; Stats. 1985 s. 227.47; 1993 a. 16, 491; 2003 a. 33 ss. 2376, 2377, 9160; 2015 a. 55.
227.47 AnnotationAbsent controlling legislation to the contrary, determinations by administrative agencies acting in a judicial capacity are generally given preclusive effect in subsequent court actions between the same parties. Certain conditions must, however, be met: 1) the administrative proceeding must have been properly before the agency; 2) the administrative agency must have been acting in a judicial capacity; 3) the issues for which preclusion is sought must have been actually determined by the administrative agency; and 4) the parties must have had an adequate opportunity to litigate those issues before the administrative agency. Hlavinka v. Blunt, Ellis & Loewi, Inc., 174 Wis. 2d 381, 497 N.W.2d 756 (Ct. App. 1993).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: All Star Rent a Car, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 2006 WI 85 (Wis. 2006).
All Star Rent a Car, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 2006 WI 85 (Wis. 2006). “" Wis. Stat. § 227.47 (1). Since DHA, not DOT, issued the written decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law, DOT argues that DHA must be the agency decision-maker.”
Sheely v. Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 426 N.W.2d 367 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “" There is an overriding canon of statutory construction which compels the conclusion that the WEAJA was intended to require trial courts, if the statutory conditions are satisfied, to award costs and fees against state agencies when they appear in proceedings for judicial…”
Door Cnty. High. Dep't v. Wisconsin Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 404 N.W.2d 548 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “Section 227.47, Stats. The department found that the county did not comply with sec.”
Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, Inc. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 440 N.W.2d 337 (Wis. 1989). “, dismissing Waste Management’s petition for judicial review of a *819 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) decision, and remanding the matter to the DNR so that it would make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by sec. 227.47, Stats. 1 We address four issues in…”
Sierra Club v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2007 WI App 181 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “46 (2), (3)(a), (4), (6) and (8); Wis. Stat. § 227.47 ; Wis. Stat. § 227.485 (5) and (6); and Wis.”
Froebel v. Meyer, 13 F. Supp. 2d 843 (E.D. Wis. 1998). “Summary of State Administrative Proceedings and Judicial Review The ALJ Decision, issued pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.47 , followed a contested case hearing on the removal of Funk’s Dam.”
Wisconsin Dep't of Transp. v. Off. of Comm'r of Transp., 463 N.W.2d 870 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “Section 227.47 requires that the commissioner make a decision accompanied by findings of fact which "shall consist of a concise and separate statement of the ultimate conclusions upon each material issue of fact.”
Gibson v. State Pub. Def., 454 N.W.2d 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “Section 227.47 provides in part: "Every proposed or final decision of an agency .”
City of Brookfield v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 414 N.W.2d 308 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “The municipalities could cite no case in which the commission refused to allow the inclusion of CWIP in the rate base of a municipal corporation. Therefore, the commission’s decision here is not a divergence from prior practice or stated policy.”
Gimenez v. State of Wisconsin Med. Examining Bd., 552 N.W.2d 863 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “See § 227.47, Stats. In addition, the Gilbert court recognized that judges have little expertise in medical matters.”
All Star Rent a Car, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 2004 WI App 198 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Moreover, the impact of the directive in the appended notice that a petitioner should name the DHA as respondent is somewhat diminished by the very first page of the DHA decision, which informs a reader that in "accordance with *804 Wis. Stat. §§ 227.47 and 227.53(l)(c), the…”
Metro. Greyhound Mgmt. Corp. v. Wisconsin Racing Bd., 460 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “53, 227.55-.58, Stats. Significantly, and obviously, unlike the "sentence first — verdict afterwards" procedure employed by the Queen of Hearts, see L.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.47(1) — 8 cases
Gimenez v. State of Wisconsin Med. Examining Bd., 600 N.W.2d 28 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
Gimenez v. State of Wisconsin Med. Examining Bd., 552 N.W.2d 863 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “See § 227.47, Stats. In addition, the Gilbert court recognized that judges have little expertise in medical matters.”
Jace T. McDonald v. State of Wisconsin Dep't of Fin. Institutions (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
Vladimir Gorokhovsky v. State Pub. Def. Off. (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
Derrick A. Sanders v. State of Wisconsin Claims Bd. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022).
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.