Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 227.49 (2026)
Petitions for rehearing in contested cases
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
227.49(1)(1) A petition for rehearing shall not be a prerequisite for appeal or review. Any person aggrieved by a final order may, within 20 days after service of the order, file a written petition for rehearing which shall specify in detail the grounds for the relief sought and supporting authorities. An agency may order a rehearing on its own motion within 20 days after service of a final order. This subsection does not apply to s. 17.025 (3) (e). No agency is required to conduct more than one rehearing based on a petition for rehearing filed under this subsection in any contested case.
227.49(2)(2) The filing of a petition for rehearing shall not suspend or delay the effective date of the order, and the order shall take effect on the date fixed by the agency and shall continue in effect unless the petition is granted or until the order is superseded, modified, or set aside as provided by law.
227.49(3)(c)(c) The discovery of new evidence sufficiently strong to reverse or modify the order, and which could not have been previously discovered by due diligence.
227.49(4)(4) Copies of petitions for rehearing shall be served on all parties of record. Parties may file replies to the petition.
227.49(5)(5) The agency may order a rehearing or enter an order with reference to the petition without a hearing, and shall dispose of the petition within 30 days after it is filed. If the agency does not enter an order disposing of the petition within the 30-day period, the petition shall be deemed to have been denied as of the expiration of the 30-day period.
227.49(6)(6) Upon granting a rehearing, the agency shall set the matter for further proceedings as soon as practicable. Proceedings upon rehearing shall conform as nearly may be to the proceedings in an original hearing except as the agency may otherwise direct. If in the agency’s judgment, after such rehearing it appears that the original decision, order or determination is in any respect unlawful or unreasonable, the agency may reverse, change, modify or suspend the same accordingly. Any decision, order or determination made after such rehearing reversing, changing, modifying or suspending the original determination shall have the same force and effect as an original decision, order or determination.
227.49 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 94 s. 3; 1975 c. 414; 1977 c. 139; 1979 c. 208; 1985 a. 182 s. 33t; Stats. 1985 s. 227.49.
227.49 AnnotationThis section does not require service of a petition for rehearing within 20 days of service of the order, only filing. DOR v. Hogan, 198 Wis. 2d 792, 543 N.W.2d 825 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-0438.
227.49 AnnotationFiling of a petition for rehearing under sub. (1) is not accomplished upon its mailing. A petition is filed when it is physically delivered to and received by the relevant authority. Currier v. DOR, 2006 WI App 12, 288 Wis. 2d 693, 709 N.W.2d 520, 05-0292.
227.49 AnnotationIn this case, when the analysis set forth in an order of the Public Service Commission (PSC) denying a petition for rehearing under this section was analogous to PSC’s decision in the underlying matter, the decision denying the rehearing met the definition of an administrative decision for purposes of being subject to judicial review under s. 227.52. The substantial evidence standard under s. 227.57 (6) therefore applied with respect to review of PSC’s findings of fact underlying PSC’s decision on whether to grant rehearing. Town of Holland v. PSC, 2018 WI App 38, 382 Wis. 2d 799, 913 N.W.2d 914, 17-1129.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1987–2020 · leading case: Currier v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2006 WI App 12 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005).
Currier v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2006 WI App 12 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “Further, Currier's petition for rehearing from the Commission's decision was untimely under *697 Wis. Stat. § 227.49 (1), the controlling statute, because it was not physically delivered to and received by the Commission until twenty-one days after the Commission's decision.”
Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue v. Hogan, 543 N.W.2d 825 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “[6] The Hogans offer no authority for the proposition that a petition properly filed with the commission within the twenty-day time limit must be considered a nullity under § 227.49, STATS., if service on the parties of record is not also completed by the twentieth day.”
Schwartz v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2002 WI App 255 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “Schwartz petitioned for a rehearing under Wis. Stat. § 227.49 (1999-2000), 4 arguing that the Commission had failed to honor its promise to subpoena witnesses on his behalf.”
Town of Holland v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wis., 913 N.W.2d 914 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 227.49(3), a rehearing will be granted only upon a showing that the agency decision contained a material error of law or fact, or upon the discovery of new evidence "sufficiently strong to reverse or modify the order, and which could not have been previously discovered by due…”
(90 CV 1352) Madison Landfills, Inc. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 509 N.W.2d 300 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “MLI's request for rehearing was made under sec. 227.49, Stats. 4 On March 27 DNR denied MLI's requests to rehear or reopen, including the requested rehearing on the bad actor issue, but remanded the bad actor issue to take testimony.”
Rutherford v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2008 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “§ 227.49 [5] which allows *902 petitions for rehearing based on "[t]he discovery of new evidence sufficiently strong to reverse or modify the order, and which could not have been previously discovered by due diligence.”
Matter of Guardianship of Jenae Ks, 539 N.W.2d 104 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “See § 227.49, STATS. ("Any person aggrieved by a final order may, within 20 days after service of the order, file a written petition for rehearing which shall specify in detail the grounds for the relief sought and supporting authorities.”
Burke v. Cent. Educ. Agency, 725 S.W.2d 393 (Tex. App. 1987). “10-113 (1986), (application for rehearing a prerequisite to appeal); Wis.Stat.Ann. § 227.49 (Supp.1986) (petition for rehearing not a prerequisite to appeal, but may be filed by a person aggrieved by a final order).”
Bracegirdle v. State Dep't of Reg. & Licensing, Bd. of Nursing & Div. of Enf't, 464 N.W.2d 111 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “The board argues that Bracegirdle waived any objection to the chairperson's participation because she did not move the board for a rehearing under sec. 227.49(1), Stats. Under Sec. 227.49(1), any person aggrieved by an agency's final order may file a written petition with the…”
Kennedy v. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 544 N.W.2d 917 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “It argues that nothing in the statutes or the administrative code prohibits the agency from entertaining a rehearing request, and that § 227.49 is intended to permit an agency to correct errors.”
Alleghany Corp. v. Haase, 708 F. Supp. 1507 (W.D. Wis. 1989). “The decision also notified Alleghany of its right, within 30 days, to petition for a rehearing pursuant to Wis.Stat. § 227.49 or to seek judicial review in Wisconsin Circuit Court under Wis.”
Wisconsin Power & Light Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 2006 WI App 221 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “48 service. *714 ¶ 16. We agree with the PSC and MG&E that the proper definition for "file" for purposes of Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.49(1) — 4 cases
Currier v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2006 WI App 12 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “Further, Currier's petition for rehearing from the Commission's decision was untimely under *697 Wis. Stat. § 227.49 (1), the controlling statute, because it was not physically delivered to and received by the Commission until twenty-one days after the Commission's decision.”
Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue v. Hogan, 543 N.W.2d 825 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “[6] The Hogans offer no authority for the proposition that a petition properly filed with the commission within the twenty-day time limit must be considered a nullity under § 227.49, STATS., if service on the parties of record is not also completed by the twentieth day.”
Bracegirdle v. State Dep't of Reg. & Licensing, Bd. of Nursing & Div. of Enf't, 464 N.W.2d 111 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “The board argues that Bracegirdle waived any objection to the chairperson's participation because she did not move the board for a rehearing under sec. 227.49(1), Stats. Under Sec. 227.49(1), any person aggrieved by an agency's final order may file a written petition with the…”
Kennedy v. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 544 N.W.2d 917 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “It argues that nothing in the statutes or the administrative code prohibits the agency from entertaining a rehearing request, and that § 227.49 is intended to permit an agency to correct errors.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.49(3) — 4 cases
Town of Holland v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wis., 913 N.W.2d 914 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 227.49(3), a rehearing will be granted only upon a showing that the agency decision contained a material error of law or fact, or upon the discovery of new evidence "sufficiently strong to reverse or modify the order, and which could not have been previously discovered by due…”
(90 CV 1352) Madison Landfills, Inc. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 509 N.W.2d 300 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “MLI's request for rehearing was made under sec. 227.49, Stats. 4 On March 27 DNR denied MLI's requests to rehear or reopen, including the requested rehearing on the bad actor issue, but remanded the bad actor issue to take testimony.”
Schwartz v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2002 WI App 255 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “Schwartz petitioned for a rehearing under Wis. Stat. § 227.49 (1999-2000), 4 arguing that the Commission had failed to honor its promise to subpoena witnesses on his behalf.”
Samuel Ison v. Dep't of Health Servs. (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wis. Stat. § 227.49(4) — 1 case
Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue v. Hogan, 543 N.W.2d 825 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “[6] The Hogans offer no authority for the proposition that a petition properly filed with the commission within the twenty-day time limit must be considered a nullity under § 227.49, STATS., if service on the parties of record is not also completed by the twentieth day.”
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.