Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 227.51 (2026)
Licenses
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
227.51(1)(1) When the grant, denial or renewal of a license is required to be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing, the provisions of this chapter concerning contested cases apply.
227.51(2)(2) When a licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license or a new license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license does not expire until the application has been finally acted upon by the agency, and, if the application is denied or the terms of the new license are limited, until the last day for seeking review of the agency decision or a later date fixed by order of the reviewing court.
227.51(3)(a)(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, no revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal of any license is lawful unless the agency gives notice by mail to the licensee of facts or conduct which warrant the intended action and the licensee is given an opportunity to show compliance with all lawful requirements for the retention of the license.
227.51(3)(b)(b) If an agency finds that public health, safety, or welfare imperatively requires emergency action and incorporates a finding to that effect in its order, the agency may order the summary suspension of a license pending proceedings for revocation or other action. Such proceedings shall be promptly instituted and determined.
227.51(3)(c)(c) If an agency finds that public health, safety, or welfare imperatively requires emergency action and incorporates a finding to that effect in its order, the agency may order the summary limitation of a license pending proceedings for revocation or other action. Such proceedings shall be promptly instituted and determined. This paragraph applies only to an agency described in s. 440.03 (1).
227.51 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).
227.51 AnnotationA change to the statutes or rules that might negatively affect a permit holder does not itself constitute a revocation for the purpose of this section. LeClair v. Natural Resources Board, 168 Wis. 2d 227, 483 N.W.2d 278 (Ct. App. 1992).
227.51 AnnotationDiscussing summary suspension of occupational licenses. 76 Atty. Gen. 110.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1990–2015 · leading case: Metro. Greyhound Mgmt. Corp. v. Wisconsin Racing Bd., 460 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).
Metro. Greyhound Mgmt. Corp. v. Wisconsin Racing Bd., 460 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “The trial court affirmed, and concluded that the alleged disputes of material fact were legal issues that had to be decided "in a proceeding for judicial review of the decision" and not explored in a contested-case hearing.”
LeClair v. Nat. Resources Bd., 483 N.W.2d 278 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “The issues are whether certain rules promulgated by the department: (1) operate to revoke appellants' fishing permits and thus require an adjudicatory hearing under sec. 227.51(3), Stats.; (2) are improperly directed at a closed class; (3) constitute an unconstitutional "taking"…”
Elouise Bradley v. Jennifer Sabree, 594 F. App'x 881 (7th Cir. 2015). “The court determined that Bradley failed to state a claim against the DCF defendants because her exclusive remedy to challenge the DCF’s actions was through the state’s Administrative Procedure Act, see Wis.”
Wis. Stat. § 227.51(1): 1 case
Metro. Greyhound Mgmt. Corp. v. Wisconsin Racing Bd., 460 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “The trial court affirmed, and concluded that the alleged disputes of material fact were legal issues that had to be decided "in a proceeding for judicial review of the decision" and not explored in a contested-case hearing.”
Wis. Stat. § 227.51(3): 1 case
LeClair v. Nat. Resources Bd., 483 N.W.2d 278 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “The issues are whether certain rules promulgated by the department: (1) operate to revoke appellants' fishing permits and thus require an adjudicatory hearing under sec. 227.51(3), Stats.; (2) are improperly directed at a closed class; (3) constitute an unconstitutional "taking"…”
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.