Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 227.52 (2026)

Judicial review; decisions reviewable

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

227.52227.52 Judicial review; decisions reviewable. Administrative decisions which adversely affect the substantial interests of any person, whether by action or inaction, whether affirmative or negative in form, are subject to review as provided in this chapter, except as otherwise provided by law and except for the following:

227.52(1)(1) Decisions of the department of revenue.

227.52(2)(2) Decisions of the department of employee trust funds.

227.52(3)(3) Those decisions of the division of banking that are subject to review, prior to any judicial review, by the banking institutions review board, and decisions of the division of banking relating to savings banks or savings and loan associations, but no other institutions subject to the jurisdiction of the division of banking.

227.52(4)(4) Decisions of the office of credit unions.

227.52(6)(6) Decisions of the chairperson of the elections commission or the chairperson’s designee.

227.52(7)(7) Those decisions of the department of workforce development which are subject to review, prior to any judicial review, by the labor and industry review commission.

227.52 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 414; 1977 c. 187, 418; 1981 c. 79, 96, 391; 1983 a. 27, 122, 183, 538; 1985 a. 182 s. 35; Stats. 1985 s. 227.52; 1995 a. 27 ss. 6233, 9130 (4); 1997 a. 3, 27; 1999 a. 9, 182; 2003 a. 33; 2007 a. 1; 2015 a. 118; 2019 a. 65; 2023 a. 73.

227.52 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See s. 50.03 (11) for review under subch. I of ch. 50.

227.52 AnnotationAn order of the Tax Appeals Commission refusing to dismiss proceedings for lack of jurisdiction was not appealable because the merits of the case were still pending. Pasch v. DOR, 58 Wis. 2d 346, 206 N.W.2d 157 (1973).

227.52 AnnotationThe right to appeal from an administrative agency’s determination is statutory and does not exist except where expressly given and cannot be extended to cases not within the statute. Pasch v. DOR, 58 Wis. 2d 346, 206 N.W.2d 157 (1973).

227.52 AnnotationThe requirements of ss. 227.15 and 227.16 (1) [now this section and s. 227.53 (1)] for standing to seek review of an administrative decision do not create separate and independent criteria, but both sections essentially require that, to be a person aggrieved for standing purposes, one must have an interest recognized by law in the subject matter that is injuriously affected by the decision. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 69 Wis. 2d 1, 230 N.W.2d 243 (1975). But see Friends of the Black River Forest v. Kohler Co., 2022 WI 52, 402 Wis. 2d 587, 977 N.W.2d 342, 19-0299.

227.52 AnnotationAn order of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission directing an election and determining the bargaining unit under s. 111.70 (4) (d) was not reviewable. City of West Allis v. WERC, 72 Wis. 2d 268, 240 N.W.2d 416 (1976).

227.52 AnnotationAn unconditional interim order by the Public Service Commission fixing utility rates pending final determination was reviewable when no provision was made for the refund of excess interim rates. Friends of the Earth v. PSC, 78 Wis. 2d 388, 254 N.W.2d 299 (1977).

227.52 AnnotationThe decision of the Public Service Commission not to investigate under ss. 196.28 and 196.29 [now s. 196.28 (1) to (3)] was a nonreviewable, discretionary determination. Defining reviewable decisions. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 93 Wis. 2d 650, 287 N.W.2d 737 (1980).

227.52 AnnotationIn Town of Ashwaubenon, 22 Wis. 2d 38 (1963), the requirement of a contested case was abrogated as a condition to judicial review of administrative agency decisions, but the legislative declaration that decisions of administrative agencies be reviewed under s. 227.15 [now this section] envisions a review of a decision that must be supported by a record and be based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by s. 227.10 [now s. 227.47]. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 93 Wis. 2d 650, 287 N.W.2d 737 (1980).

227.52 AnnotationA court order setting aside an administrative order and remanding the case to the administrative agency disposed of the entire matter in litigation and was appealable as of right. Bearns v. DILHR, 102 Wis. 2d 70, 306 N.W.2d 22 (1981).

227.52 AnnotationBecause an appointment to office was an administrative decision, a challenge of the appointment could only be made under this chapter. State ex rel. Frederick v. Cox, 111 Wis. 2d 264, 330 N.W.2d 603 (Ct. App. 1982).

227.52 AnnotationA declaratory judgment action was improper when the plaintiff did not pursue any available remedies under this chapter. Turkow v. DNR, 216 Wis. 2d 273, 576 N.W.2d 288 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-1149.

227.52 AnnotationThe Division of Hearings and Appeals (DHA) is not a line agency charged with the administration and enforcement of the statutes involved and does not have experience administering the underlying program. Unless the line agency has adopted DHA’s interpretation as its own, de novo review of a DHA decision is appropriate. Buettner v. DHFS, 2003 WI App 90, 264 Wis. 2d 700, 663 N.W.2d 282, 01-0981.

227.52 AnnotationUnlike factual questions, or questions with legal issues intertwined with factual determinations, neither party bears any burden when the issue before the court is whether an administrative agency exceeded the scope of its powers in promulgating a rule. The court examines the enabling statute de novo to ascertain whether the statute grants express or implied authorization for the rule. Any reasonable doubt pertaining to an agency’s implied powers are resolved against the agency. Wisconsin Citizens Concerned for Cranes & Doves v. DNR, 2004 WI 40, 270 Wis. 2d 318, 677 N.W.2d 612, 02-1166.

227.52 AnnotationAlthough this section does not require that an administrative decision be final to be subject to judicial review, case law has established that the legislative intent was to limit judicial review to final orders of an agency. A final order for purposes of judicial review directly affects the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a person. One aspect of this standard is whether the person would have another opportunity for judicial review, whereas an interlocutory order is one under which the substantial rights of the parties remain undetermined and the cause is retained for further action. Sierra Club v. DNR, 2007 WI App 181, 304 Wis. 2d 614, 736 N.W.2d 918, 06-2653.

227.52 AnnotationIn this case, when the analysis set forth in an order of the Public Service Commission (PSC) denying a petition for rehearing under s. 227.49 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 this section. 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.

227.52 AnnotationAn environmental impact statement (EIS), by its plain terms, is not a final decision: it analyzes the effects of, and alternatives to, a proposal without dictating any course of action or establishing the rights of any interested party. Accordingly, a party must wait for some final agency decision it is aggrieved by, such as the issuance or denial of a permit, at which point it may raise its challenges to the EIS in a petition for judicial review of the agency decision that the EIS analyzes. Friends of the Black River Forest v. DNR, 2021 WI App 54, 404 Wis. 2d 590, 964 N.W.2d 342, 19-2434.

227.52 AnnotationAn agency letter indicating that the petitioner simply must comply with the permitting process to get a permit, which may accrue some cost to the petitioner, does not adversely affect the petitioner’s substantial interests. As a result, the letter is not subject to judicial review. Container Life Cycle Management, LLC v. DNR, 2022 WI 45, 402 Wis. 2d 337, 975 N.W.2d 621, 19-1007.

227.52 AnnotationWhile historically the court has labeled the second prong of the standing test as a “zone of interests” inquiry in line with federal standing principles, this nomenclature has no basis in the text of this section or s. 227.53 and does not accurately describe the test the court has consistently applied. The court grounds the decision instead in the well-established formulation for standing to challenge administrative decisions, which requires the alleged injury to adversely affect an interest that the law recognizes or seeks to regulate or protect. Friends of the Black River Forest v. Kohler Co., 2022 WI 52, 402 Wis. 2d 587, 977 N.W.2d 342, 19-0299.

227.52 AnnotationAdministrative Decisions Eligible for Judicial Review in Wisconsin. Klitzke. 61 MLR 405 (1978).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 133 cases (41 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Friends of the Black River Forest v. DNR, 2022 WI 52 (Wis. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Friends of the Black River Forest v. DNR, 2022 WI 52 (Wis. 2022). · cites it 20× “2 Kohler asserts the Friends do not have standing to challenge the Board's land swap decision under Wis. Stat. §§ 227.52 and 227.53 (2017–18)3 because their alleged injuries satisfy neither the "injury-in-fact" nor the "zone of interests" elements of the two-part standing…”

Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 2005 WI 93 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 16× “Johnson & Son, joined by Clean Wisconsin (hereinafter collectively referred to as Clean Wisconsin), Calpine, and Oak Creek sought review of the PSC's decision in the Circuit Court for Dane County, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.52 . [19] The circuit court *303 consolidated the…”

All Star Rent a Car, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 2006 WI 85 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 35× “Any person aggrieved by the attached decision which adversely affects the substantial interests of such person by action or inaction, affirmative or negative in form is entitled to judicial review by filing a petition [therefor] in accordance with the provisions of Wis. Stat. §§…”

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 914 N.W.2d 21 (Wis. 2018). · cites it 4× “"7 ¶7 Tetra Tech and LFR Remediation timely filed a petition for judicial review, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.52 , in the 6 Tetra Tech and LFR Remediation's petitions received separate docket numbers (12-S-192 and 12-S-193, respectively), but the Commission decided the cases…”

Container Life Cycle Mgmt., LLC v. DNR, 2022 WI 45 (Wis. 2022). · cites it 33× “¶29 The applicable statute here is Wis. Stat. § 227.52 , which sets forth the general rule regarding the reviewability of administrative agency decisions, as well as several exceptions.”

Dennis A. Teague v. Brad D. Schimel, 2017 WI 56 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 14× “70 is insufficient to remedy Teague's injury, then Teague may seek judicial review under Wis. Stat. § 227.52 . . . . [R]esolving Teague's statutory claim under Wis.”

The Honorable William M. Gabler, Sr. v. Crime Victims Rights Bd., 2017 WI 67 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 4× “Wis. Stat. § 227.52 . A court conducting a Chapter 227 review "shall set aside or modify the agency action if it finds that the agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of law and a correct interpretation compels a particular action.”

Racine Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. State Div. of Hearings & Appeals, 2006 WI 86 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 6× “Section 227.52 provides for judicial review of any "administrative decision" without linking that decision to an agency.”

Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wisconsin, 2005 WI 93 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 8× “Johnson & Son, joined by Clean Wisconsin (hereinafter collectively referred to as Clean Wisconsin), Calpine, and Oak Creek sought review of the PSC's decision in the Circuit Court for Dane County, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.52 . [19] The circuit court consolidated the actions…”

Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Dist. IV, 909 N.W.2d 114 (Wis. 2018). · cites it 4× “41 and Wis. Stat. § 227.52 ); Drow, 225 Wis. 2d at 362-66 (applying Wis.”

Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue v. Hogan, 543 N.W.2d 825 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 19× “The department argues, on the other hand, that the class-certification order was not final but interlocutory in nature, and thus was not an "administrative decision[] which adversely affect[ed] the substantial interests of [the department]" within the meaning of *803 § 227.”

Wisconsin Indus. Energy Grp., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 2012 WI 89 (Wis. 2012). · cites it 5× “41 and Wis. Stat. § 227.52 . The circuit court concluded that, although de novo review applied to the PSC's decision to apply the CA rather than the CPCN law, the PSC's decision was correct.”

Show all 133 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 227.52(1) — 1 case

Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. DOR, 2020 WI App 7 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).

— Wis. Stat. § 227.52(7) — 2 cases

Galien v. Wis. Emp't Relations Comm'n, 921 N.W.2d 519 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).

Gregory C. Mallett v. LIRC (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).

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.