Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 227.50 (2026)
Ex parte communications 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
227.50(1)(a)(a) Except as provided in par. (am), in a contested case, no ex parte communication relative to the merits or a threat or offer of reward shall be made, before a decision is rendered, to the hearing examiner or any other official or employee of the agency who is involved in the decision-making process, by any of the following:
227.50(1)(a)1m.1m. An official of the agency or any other public employee or official engaged in prosecution or advocacy in connection with the matter under consideration or a factually related matter. This subdivision does not apply to an advisory staff which does not participate in the proceeding.
227.50(1)(a)2.2. A party to the proceeding, or any person who directly or indirectly would have a substantial interest in the proposed agency action or an authorized representative or counsel.
227.50(1)(am)2.2. An ex parte communication by an official or employee of an agency which is conducting a class 1 proceeding.
227.50(1)(am)3.3. Any communication made to an agency in response to a request by the agency for information required in the ordinary course of its regulatory functions by rule of the agency.
227.50(1)(am)4.4. In a contested case before the public service commission, an ex parte communication by or to any official or employee of the commission other than the hearing examiner, the chairperson, or a commissioner.
227.50(2)(2) A hearing examiner or other agency official or employee involved in the decision-making process who receives an ex parte communication in violation of sub. (1) shall place on the record of the pending matter the communication, if written, a memorandum stating the substance of the communication, if oral, all written responses to the communication and a memorandum stating the substance of all oral responses made, and also shall advise all parties that the material has been placed on the record; however, any writing or memorandum which would not be admissible into the record if presented at the hearing shall not be placed in the record, but notice of the substance or nature of the communication shall be given to all parties. Any party desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to do so, if the party requests the opportunity for rebuttal within 10 days after notice of the communication. The hearing examiner or agency official or employee may, if deeming it necessary to eliminate the effect of an ex parte communication received, withdraw from the proceeding, in which case a successor shall be assigned.
227.50 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 94 s. 3; 1975 c. 414; 1977 c. 418; 1985 a. 182 s. 33t; Stats. 1985 s. 227.50; 2013 a. 28; 2015 a. 55.
227.50 AnnotationThe failure to notify the parties of the receipt of an ex parte communication was harmless error. Seebach v. PSC, 97 Wis. 2d 712, 295 N.W.2d 753 (Ct. App. 1980).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · 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). “The circuit court reviewed the case and concluded that the prohibition of ex parte communications for contested cases set forth in Wis. Stat. § 227.50 required that Marder be present when the Board and the chancellor met.”
Marder v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 2004 WI App 177 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “It also concluded that, while the code required the Board to consult with the Chancellor, Wis. Stat. § 227.50 required Marder to be present.”
Marder v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 2005 WI 159 (Wis. 2005). “The circuit court reviewed the case and concluded that the prohibition of ex parte communications for contested cases set forth in Wis. Stat. § 227.50 required that Marder be present when the Board and the chancellor met.”
Cnty. of Dane v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wisconsin, 2022 WI 61 (Wis. 2022). “33 ¶52 Ex parte communication on the merits of a contested matter is the focus of Wis. Stat. § 227.50 (1)(a). It regulates ex parte communications on the merits as follows: [I]n a contested case, no ex parte communication relative to the merits or a threat or offer of reward…”
Rutherford v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2008 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “The ALJ properly handled this ex parte communication according to the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 227.50 (2) (2003-04). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted.”
Nu-Roc Nursing Home, Inc. v. State Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 546 N.W.2d 562 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “Section 227.50(1), STATS., provides in part: (l)(a) In a contested case, no ex parte communication relative to the merits .”
Bartley v. Thompson, 542 N.W.2d 227 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “" Bartley's complaint also alleged a conspiracy to "influence the outcome of the Pension Case in violation of § 227.50(1), Wis. *342 Stats.," which prohibits parties, interested agency officials or other persons with a substantial interest in a contested case being heard before…”
State Pub. Intervenor v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 503 N.W.2d 305 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “See sec. 227.50(2), Stats., which requires agency decisionmakers receiving ex parte communications to place them on the record and provides a procedure for any party desiring to respond to or rebut them.”
Cnty. of Dane v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wisconsin, 2022 WI 61 (Wis. 2022). “33 ¶52 Ex parte communication on the merits of a contested matter is the focus of Wis. Stat. § 227.50 (1)(a). It regulates ex parte communications on the merits as follows: [I]n a contested case, no ex parte communication relative to the merits or a threat or offer of reward…”
Derrick A. Sanders v. State of Wisconsin Claims Bd. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “Sanders does not argue that his petition was a “contested case” in the Claims Board pursuant to § 227.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.50(1) — 3 cases
Nu-Roc Nursing Home, Inc. v. State Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 546 N.W.2d 562 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “Section 227.50(1), STATS., provides in part: (l)(a) In a contested case, no ex parte communication relative to the merits .”
Bartley v. Thompson, 542 N.W.2d 227 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “" Bartley's complaint also alleged a conspiracy to "influence the outcome of the Pension Case in violation of § 227.50(1), Wis. *342 Stats.," which prohibits parties, interested agency officials or other persons with a substantial interest in a contested case being heard before…”
Derrick A. Sanders v. State of Wisconsin Claims Bd. (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “Sanders does not argue that his petition was a “contested case” in the Claims Board pursuant to § 227.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.50(1)(a) — 2 cases
Cnty. of Dane v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wisconsin, 2022 WI 61 (Wis. 2022). “33 ¶52 Ex parte communication on the merits of a contested matter is the focus of Wis. Stat. § 227.50 (1)(a). It regulates ex parte communications on the merits as follows: [I]n a contested case, no ex parte communication relative to the merits or a threat or offer of reward…”
Cnty. of Dane v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wisconsin, 2022 WI 61 (Wis. 2022). “33 ¶52 Ex parte communication on the merits of a contested matter is the focus of Wis. Stat. § 227.50 (1)(a). It regulates ex parte communications on the merits as follows: [I]n a contested case, no ex parte communication relative to the merits or a threat or offer of reward…”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.50(2) — 2 cases
State Pub. Intervenor v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 503 N.W.2d 305 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). “See sec. 227.50(2), Stats., which requires agency decisionmakers receiving ex parte communications to place them on the record and provides a procedure for any party desiring to respond to or rebut them.”
Rutherford v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2008 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “The ALJ properly handled this ex parte communication according to the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 227.50 (2) (2003-04). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.50(l)(a) — 3 cases
Marder v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 2004 WI App 177 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “It also concluded that, while the code required the Board to consult with the Chancellor, Wis. Stat. § 227.50 required Marder to be present.”
Bartley v. Thompson, 542 N.W.2d 227 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “" Bartley's complaint also alleged a conspiracy to "influence the outcome of the Pension Case in violation of § 227.50(1), Wis. *342 Stats.," which prohibits parties, interested agency officials or other persons with a substantial interest in a contested case being heard before…”
Nu-Roc Nursing Home, Inc. v. State Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 546 N.W.2d 562 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “Section 227.50(1), STATS., provides in part: (l)(a) In a contested case, no ex parte communication relative to the merits .”
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.