Wis. Stat. § 227.53

Parties and proceedings for review

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

227.53227.53 Parties and proceedings for review.

227.53(1)(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, any person aggrieved by a decision specified in s. 227.52 shall be entitled to judicial review of the decision as provided in this chapter and subject to all of the following procedural requirements:

227.53(1)(a)(a)

227.53(1)(a)1.1. Proceedings for review shall be instituted by serving a petition therefor personally or by certified mail upon the agency or one of its officials, and filing the petition in the office of the clerk of circuit court for the county where the judicial review proceedings are to be held. If the agency whose decision is sought to be reviewed is the tax appeals commission, the banking institutions review board, or the credit union review board, the petition shall be served upon both the agency whose decision is sought to be reviewed and the corresponding named respondent, as specified under par. (b) 1. to 4.

227.53(1)(a)2.2. Unless a rehearing is requested under s. 227.49, petitions for review of contested cases shall be served and filed within 30 days after the service of the decision of the agency upon all parties under s. 227.48. If a rehearing is requested under s. 227.49, any party desiring judicial review under this subdivision shall serve and file a petition for review within 30 days after service of the order finally disposing of the application for rehearing, or within 30 days after the final disposition by operation of law of any such application for rehearing. The 30-day period for serving and filing a petition under this subdivision commences on the day after personal service or mailing of the decision by the agency.

227.53(1)(a)2m.2m. Petitions for review of cases other than contested cases shall be served and filed within 30 days after personal service or mailing of the decision by the agency.

227.53(1)(a)3.3. If the petitioner is a resident, the proceedings shall be held in the circuit court for the county where the petitioner resides, except that if the petitioner is an agency, the proceedings shall be in the circuit court for the county where the respondent resides and except as provided in ss. 73.0301 (2) (b) 2., 77.59 (6) (b), 108.227 (6), 182.70 (6), and 182.71 (5) (g). If the petitioner is a nonresident, the proceedings shall be held in the county where the property affected by the decision is located or, if no property is affected, in the county where the dispute arose. If all parties stipulate and the court to which the parties desire to transfer the proceedings agrees, the proceedings may be held in the county designated by the parties. If 2 or more petitions for review of the same decision are filed in different counties, the circuit judge for the county in which a petition for review of the decision was first filed shall determine the venue for judicial review of the decision, and shall order transfer or consolidation where appropriate.

227.53(1)(b)(b) The petition shall state the nature of the petitioner’s interest, the facts showing that petitioner is a person aggrieved by the decision, and the grounds specified in s. 227.57 upon which petitioner contends that the decision should be reversed or modified. The petition may be amended, by leave of court, though the time for serving the same has expired. The petition shall be entitled in the name of the person serving it as petitioner and the name of the agency whose decision is sought to be reviewed as respondent, except that in petitions for review of decisions of the following agencies, the latter agency specified shall be the named respondent:

227.53(1)(b)1.1. The tax appeals commission, the department of revenue.

227.53(1)(b)3.3. The credit union review board, the office of credit unions.

227.53(1)(b)4.4. The banking institutions review board, the division of banking, except if the petitioner is the division of banking, the prevailing parties before the banking institutions review board shall be the named respondents.

227.53(1)(c)(c) A copy of the petition shall be served personally or by certified mail or, when service is timely admitted in writing, by first class mail, not later than 30 days after the institution of the proceeding, upon each party who appeared before the agency in the proceeding in which the decision sought to be reviewed was made or upon the party’s attorney of record. A court may not dismiss the proceeding for review solely because of a failure to serve a copy of the petition upon a party or the party’s attorney of record unless the petitioner fails to serve a person listed as a party for purposes of review in the agency’s decision under s. 227.47 or the person’s attorney of record.

227.53(1)(d)(d) Except in the case of the tax appeals commission, the banking institutions review board, and the credit union review board, the agency and all parties to the proceeding before it shall have the right to participate in the proceedings for review. The court may permit other interested persons to intervene. Any person petitioning the court to intervene shall serve a copy of the petition on each party who appeared before the agency and any additional parties to the judicial review at least 5 days prior to the date set for hearing on the petition.

227.53(2)(2) Every person served with the petition for review as provided in this section and who desires to participate in the proceedings for review thereby instituted shall serve upon the petitioner, within 20 days after service of the petition upon such person, a notice of appearance clearly stating the person’s position with reference to each material allegation in the petition and to the affirmance, vacation or modification of the order or decision under review. Such notice, other than by the named respondent, shall also be served on the named respondent and the attorney general, and shall be filed, together with proof of required service thereof, with the clerk of the reviewing court within 10 days after such service. Service of all subsequent papers or notices in such proceeding need be made only upon the petitioner and such other persons as have served and filed the notice as provided in this subsection or have been permitted to intervene in said proceeding, as parties thereto, by order of the reviewing court.

227.53 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 243; 1975 c. 94 s. 3; 1975 c. 414; 1977 c. 26 s. 75; 1977 c. 187; 1979 c. 90, 208, 355; 1985 a. 149 s. 10; 1985 a. 182 ss. 37, 57; Stats. 1985 s. 227.53; 1987 a. 27, 313, 399; 1991 a. 221; 1995 a. 27; 1997 a. 27; 1999 a. 9, 85; 2001 a. 38; 2003 a. 33, 118; 2005 a. 253; 2009 a. 324; 2013 a. 36; 2019 a. 65.

227.53 AnnotationThe circuit court had no jurisdiction [now referred to as competency to exercise jurisdiction] of an appeal from the Tax Appeals Commission when the petition for review was served only on the Department of Revenue and not on the commission within the allowed 30 days. Brachtl v. DOR, 48 Wis. 2d 184, 179 N.W.2d 921 (1970).

227.53 AnnotationService on the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations of a notice of appeal by ordinary mail, when received in time and not promptly objected to was good service. Service on a staff member of the department was sufficient when in the past that individual had represented himself as an agent and as an attorney for the department. Hamilton v. DILHR, 56 Wis. 2d 673, 203 N.W.2d 7 (1973).

227.53 AnnotationAn appeal will not lie from an order denying a petition to reopen an earlier Public Service Commission order when no appeal was taken from the order or the order denying rehearing within 30 days. Town of Caledonia v. PSC, 56 Wis. 2d 720, 202 N.W.2d 912 (1973).

227.53 AnnotationA failure to strictly comply with the caption requirements of sub. (1) does not divest a court of jurisdiction [now referred to as competency to exercise jurisdiction] if all other jurisdictional requirements are met. Evans v. Department of Local Affairs & Development, 62 Wis. 2d 622, 215 N.W.2d 408 (1974).

227.53 AnnotationWhen the taxpayer failed to serve a copy of the petition for review of a decision and order of the Tax Appeals Commission upon the Department of Revenue within 30 days, the circuit court had no jurisdiction [now referred to as competency to exercise jurisdiction]. Cudahy v. DOR, 66 Wis. 2d 253, 224 N.W.2d 570 (1974).

227.53 AnnotationThe implied authority of the Public Service Commission (PSC) under various provisions of ch. 196 to ensure that future supplies of natural gas remain as reasonably adequate and sufficient as practicable indicated a legally recognized interest of environmental group members living in the area affected by the PSC order in the future adequacy of their service that was sufficient to provide standing to challenge PSC’s failure to consider conservation alternatives to the proposed priority system. 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.

227.53 AnnotationA county had standing to challenge the validity of a rule not adopted in conformity with former ss. 227.02 to 227.025, 1983 stats. County of Dane v. DHSS, 79 Wis. 2d 323, 255 N.W.2d 539 (1977).

227.53 Annotation“Parties” under former sub. (1) (c), 1975 stats., are those persons affirmatively demonstrating active interest in the proceedings. It was incumbent upon the Public Service Commission to identify those parties. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 84 Wis. 2d 504, 267 N.W.2d 609 (1978).

227.53 AnnotationCh. 801 is inapplicable to judicial review proceedings. Omernick v. DNR, 94 Wis. 2d 309, 287 N.W.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1979).

227.53 AnnotationService on a department rather than on a specific division within the department was sufficient notice under this section. Sunnyview Village, Inc. v. DOA, 104 Wis. 2d 396, 311 N.W.2d 632 (1981).

227.53 AnnotationWhen the petitioners lacked standing to seek review and the intervenors filed after the time limit in sub. (1), the intervenors could not continue to press their claim. Fox v. DHSS, 112 Wis. 2d 514, 334 N.W.2d 532 (1983).

227.53 AnnotationThe test for determining whether a party has standing is: 1) whether the agency decision directly causes injury to the interest of the petitioner; and 2) whether the asserted interest is recognized by law. Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 144 Wis. 2d 499, 424 N.W.2d 685 (1988).

227.53 AnnotationAlthough it may not be able to sue the state, a county has standing to bring a petition for review because the petition initiates a special proceeding rather than an action. Richland County v. DHSS, 146 Wis. 2d 271, 430 N.W.2d 374 (Ct. App. 1988).

227.53 AnnotationStrict compliance with the service requirements of sub. (1) is essential to the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction [now referred to as competency to exercise jurisdiction]. In this case, delivery of a petition to an agency attorney did not meet the requirements for service under sub. (1) (a) 1. Weisensel v. DHSS, 179 Wis. 2d 637, 508 N.W.2d 33 (Ct. App. 1993).

227.53 AnnotationThe time provisions under sub. (2) are mandatory. Wagner v. Medical Examining Board, 181 Wis. 2d 633, 511 N.W.2d 874 (1994).

227.53 AnnotationIn the case of a petition for review under this chapter, the petition commences the action rather than continuing it. As an attorney is not authorized to accept the service of process commencing an action, service on the attorney general rather than the agency is insufficient to commence an action for review. Gimenez v. Medical Examining Board, 229 Wis. 2d 312, 600 N.W.2d 28 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1367.

227.53 AnnotationBecause parties to an agency proceeding have the right to participate in judicial review proceedings under the first sentence in sub. (1) (d), those parties are not part of the group referred to as “other interested persons” in the second sentence and therefore are not entitled to petition for permissive intervention. Under sub. (1) (d), the petition to intervene must be served on all parties to the judicial review at least five days before the hearing on the intervention petition. Citizens’ Utility Board v. PSC, 2003 WI App 206, 267 Wis. 2d 414, 671 N.W.2d 11, 02-1834.

227.53 AnnotationAs a general matter, sub. (1) (a) 2. affords a petitioner 30 days from the date of service of the original adverse agency decision to file a petition for judicial review. The extended deadline for filing a petition for judicial review applies only when rehearing is requested under s. 227.49. Section 227.49 (1) specifies that the petition for rehearing must be filed, meaning physically delivered to and received by the agency, within 20 days of the initial decision. If the petition for rehearing is not filed within the 20-day time limit, a rehearing is not properly requested under s. 227.49, and the petitioner does not acquire the benefit of the extended deadline for petitioning for judicial review. Currier v. DOR, 2006 WI App 12, 288 Wis. 2d 693, 709 N.W.2d 520, 05-0292.

227.53 AnnotationAlthough sub. (1) did not clearly prescribe which governmental entity must be named and served as respondent in this case, the Division of Hearings and Appeals’ notice gave clear instructions and clarified any ambiguity in sub. (1), making the petitioner’s failure to follow the notice unreasonable and dismissal of the petition for judicial review proper. All Star Rent A Car, Inc. v. DOT, 2006 WI 85, 292 Wis. 2d 615, 716 N.W.2d 506, 03-2668.

227.53 AnnotationSub. (1) (b) does not authorize a circuit court to dismiss a petition for judicial review because it does not show the nature of the petitioner’s interest or state a ground for relief under s. 227.57 unless the petitioner has notice of the possibility of dismissal and a reasonable opportunity to request leave to amend the petition. The claimed deficiency must be raised by motion of the respondent and may not be raised by the court sua sponte. Jackson v. LIRC, 2006 WI App 97, 293 Wis. 2d 332, 715 N.W.2d 654, 05-2123.

227.53 AnnotationThe 30-day limitation period under sub. (1) (a) 2. is triggered only by s. 227.48 service of the decision upon the parties, which occurs on the date the decision is mailed to the parties, not the various dates of receipt. Once the time limitation is triggered, strict compliance is required. Wisconsin Power & Light Co. v. PSC, 2006 WI App 221, 296 Wis. 2d 705, 725 N.W. 2d 423, 05-3092.

227.53 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. 227.52 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.

227.53 AnnotationCourts have consistently recognized broad environmental interests under s. 1.11, the Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act, for standing purposes. There is no basis for limiting a friends group’s standing based on the group’s “unique relationship” with the Department of Natural Resources as an officially recognized friends group. Friends of Blue Mound State Park v. DNR, 2023 WI App 38, 408 Wis. 2d 763, 993 N.W.2d 788, 22-1127.

227.53 AnnotationA petitioner cannot “personally serve” an agency, as an entity, itself. Instead, a petitioner who elects to serve a petition on an agency by personal service under sub. (1) (a) 1. must personally serve an “official of the agency,” which s. 227.01 (7) defines as “a secretary, commissioner or member of a board of an agency,” or a person who is not an official of the agency, but who is nonetheless expressly authorized to accept service on the agency’s behalf. Laughing Cow, LP v. DOR, 2024 WI App 15, 411 Wis. 2d 299, 4 N.W.3d 625, 23-0583.

227.53 AnnotationPersonal service under sub. (1) (a) 1. requires that papers effecting service of process be physically placed in the hands of the party to be served. In this case, the individual placed the petition in the hands of a tax specialist who was not an “official” of the Department of Revenue (DOR), was not authorized to accept service of papers on DOR’s behalf, and never represented herself to be authorized to accept service on DOR’s behalf. Although the tax specialist did ultimately forward the petition to an individual who was authorized to accept service on DOR’s behalf, that did not constitute personal service upon that individual or DOR. Laughing Cow, LP v. DOR, 2024 WI App 15, 411 Wis. 2d 299, 4 N.W.3d 625, 23-0583.

227.53 AnnotationThe 30-day deadline in sub. (1) (a) 2m. applies only to “decisions” as specified in s. 227.52. Judicial review of “administrative decisions” under s. 227.52 is distinct from judicial review of “rules” under s. 227.40. As a result, a plaintiff’s rulemaking claim under s. 227.40 (1) is not an action seeking review of an “administrative decision” for the purposes of s. 227.52. Midwest Renewable Energy Ass’n v. PSC, 2024 WI App 34, 412 Wis. 2d 698, 8 N.W.3d 848, 22-0968.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 102 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: All Star Rent a Car, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

All Star Rent a Car, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation (2006) wis · cites it 210× “The circuit court dismissed All Star's petition on grounds that All Star failed to comply with Wis. Stat. § 227.53 . [1] The court of appeals reversed in a published decision [2] because it concluded that the relevant statutes were ambiguous and, as a result, All Star's action…”

Department of Natural Resources v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV (2018) wis · cites it 54× “3 See Wis. Stat. § 227.53 (1)(a)3. 3 No. 2016AP1980-W ¶6 Approximately two weeks later, the DNR petitioned this court for a supervisory writ requiring the Court of Appeals to transfer venue back to District II.”

Jackson v. Labor & Industry Review Commission (2006) wisctapp · cites it 65× “The circuit court concluded that Jackson's petition did not state the nature of his interest, facts showing he was aggrieved, and the grounds on which the agency decision should be reversed or modified, as required by Wis. Stat. § 227.53 (l)(b) (2003-04). 1 ¶ 2.”

Friends of the Black River Forest v. DNR (2022) wis · cites it 7× “Wis. Stat. § 227.53 (1). A "person aggrieved" is defined as "a person or agency whose substantial interests are adversely affected by a determination of an agency.”

Currier v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue (2005) wisctapp · cites it 17× “We further conclude that Currier's untimely petition for rehearing of the Commission's decision did not extend the time for seeking judicial review of the Commission's decision under Wis. Stat. § 227.53 (l)(a)2. and, as a result, his petition for judicial review was tardy.”

Village of Trempealeau v. Mikrut (2004) wis · cites it 4× “In Wall , the defendant Department of Revenue argued that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff improperly served its petition for review from an adverse agency decision by regular mail rather than by certified mail or in person as required…”

Cheryl M. Sorenson v. Richard A. Batchelder (2016) wis · cites it 4× “16(1)(a) (1979-80) was renumbered to Wis. Stat. § 227.53 (1)(a). 1985 Wis. Act 182.”

Weisensel v. Wisconsin Department of Health & Social Services (1993) wisctapp · cites it 24× “"Appeal" does not have its ordinary meaning when it is used to describe the right of a losing litigant before a state agency to have the agency's decision reviewed by a court.”

All Star Rent a Car, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation (2004) wisctapp · cites it 21× “The circuit court dismissed All Star's petition because All Star had not served the Division of Hearings and Appeals (DHA), which issued the challenged administrative decision and order, within the time *796 period required by Wis. Stat. § 227.53 (1) (2001-02). 1 We conclude…”

Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Scott Walker (2014) wis · cites it 4× “88 See Wis. Stat. § 227.53 ; see also Schiller v.”

Tomah-Mauston Broadcasting Co. v. Eklund (1988) wisctapp · cites it 11× “All of the affirmative acts of Hoffman and Ek-lund’s acquiescence to service of process upon Hoffman took place in the prior administrative and judicial proceedings.”

Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Hogan (1995) wisctapp · cites it 15× “The court rejected the department's argument that because it had petitioned for rehearing, the thirty-day limit was extended *802 under § 227.53(1)(a), STATS., [6] concluding the oral-decision statute under which Timken proceeded, § 73.”

Show all 102 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 227.53(1) — 32 cases

All Star Rent a Car, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation (2006) wis “The circuit court dismissed All Star's petition on grounds that All Star failed to comply with Wis. Stat. § 227.53 . [1] The court of appeals reversed in a published decision [2] because it concluded that the relevant statutes were ambiguous and, as a result, All Star's action…”

Friends of the Black River Forest v. DNR (2022) wis “Wis. Stat. § 227.53 (1). A "person aggrieved" is defined as "a person or agency whose substantial interests are adversely affected by a determination of an agency.”

Weisensel v. Wisconsin Department of Health & Social Services (1993) wisctapp “"Appeal" does not have its ordinary meaning when it is used to describe the right of a losing litigant before a state agency to have the agency's decision reviewed by a court.”

Town of Delavan v. City of Delavan (1990) wisctapp

All Star Rent a Car, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation (2004) wisctapp “The circuit court dismissed All Star's petition because All Star had not served the Division of Hearings and Appeals (DHA), which issued the challenged administrative decision and order, within the time *796 period required by Wis. Stat. § 227.53 (1) (2001-02). 1 We conclude…”

— Wis. Stat. § 227.53(1)(a) — 23 cases

Department of Natural Resources v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV (2018) wis “3 See Wis. Stat. § 227.53 (1)(a)3. 3 No. 2016AP1980-W ¶6 Approximately two weeks later, the DNR petitioned this court for a supervisory writ requiring the Court of Appeals to transfer venue back to District II.”

Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Hogan (1995) wisctapp “The court rejected the department's argument that because it had petitioned for rehearing, the thirty-day limit was extended *802 under § 227.53(1)(a), STATS., [6] concluding the oral-decision statute under which Timken proceeded, § 73.”

Currier v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue (2005) wisctapp “We further conclude that Currier's untimely petition for rehearing of the Commission's decision did not extend the time for seeking judicial review of the Commission's decision under Wis. Stat. § 227.53 (l)(a)2. and, as a result, his petition for judicial review was tardy.”

Hedrich v. BD. OF REGENTS OF UNIV. OF WISCONSIN (2001) wisctapp

— Wis. Stat. § 227.53(1)(b) — 2 cases

Jackson v. Labor & Industry Review Commission (2006) wisctapp “The circuit court concluded that Jackson's petition did not state the nature of his interest, facts showing he was aggrieved, and the grounds on which the agency decision should be reversed or modified, as required by Wis. Stat. § 227.53 (l)(b) (2003-04). 1 ¶ 2.”

— Wis. Stat. § 227.53(1)(c) — 2 cases

Tomah-Mauston Broadcasting Co. v. Eklund (1988) wisctapp “All of the affirmative acts of Hoffman and Ek-lund’s acquiescence to service of process upon Hoffman took place in the prior administrative and judicial proceedings.”

— Wis. Stat. § 227.53(1)(d) — 3 cases

Sea View Estates Beach Club, Inc. v. State Department of Natural Resources (1998) wisctapp

Citizens' Utility Board v. Public Service Commission (2003) wisctapp

Richard School Dist. v. Dilhr (1991) wisctapp

— Wis. Stat. § 227.53(2) — 6 cases

Wagner v. State Medical Examining Board (1994) wis

Wagner v. State Medical Examining Board (1992) wisctapp

— Wis. Stat. § 227.53(l)(a) — 12 cases

Truttschel v. Martin (1997) wisctapp

Outagamie County v. Town of Greenville (2000) wisctapp

— Wis. Stat. § 227.53(l)(b) — 2 cases

— Wis. Stat. § 227.53(l)(c) — 3 cases

County of Milwaukee v. State, Labor & Industry Review Commission (1987) wisctapp

Citizens' Utility Board v. Public Service Commission (2003) wisctapp

— Wis. Stat. § 227.53(l)(d) — 4 cases

Town of Delavan v. City of Delavan (1990) wisctapp

Richland School District v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations, Equal Rights Division (1993) wis

Richland School District v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations (1991) wisctapp

Citizens' Utility Board v. Public Service Commission (2003) wisctapp

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.