Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 227.56 (2026)
Additional evidence; trial; motion to dismiss; amending petition
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
227.56(1)(1) If before the date set for trial, application is made to the circuit court for leave to present additional evidence on the issues in the case, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceedings before the agency, the court may order that the additional evidence be taken before the agency upon such terms as the court may deem proper. The agency may modify its findings and decision by reason of the additional evidence and shall file with the reviewing court the additional evidence together with any modified or new findings or decision.
227.56(2)(2) Proceedings for review of administrative agency decisions as provided in this chapter may be brought on for trial or hearing at any time upon not less than 10 days’ notice given after the expiration of the time for service of the notices provided in s. 227.53 (2).
227.56(3)(3) Within 20 days after the time specified in s. 227.53 for filing notices of appearance in any proceeding for review, any respondent who has served such notice may move to dismiss the petition as filed upon the ground that such petition, upon its face, does not state facts sufficient to show that the petitioner named therein is a person aggrieved by the decision sought to be reviewed. Upon the hearing of such motion the court may grant the petitioner leave to amend the petition if the amendment as proposed shall have been served upon all respondents prior to such hearing. If so amended the court may consider and pass upon the validity of the amended petition without further or other motion to dismiss the same by any respondent.
227.56 AnnotationSection 111.36 (3m) (c) [now s. 111.39 (5) (c)] shows a policy against opening Wisconsin Fair Employment Act proceedings more than one year after the Labor and Industry Review Commission’s final order; a court should not use this chapter or s. 752.35 to circumvent that policy. Chicago & North Western Railroad v. LIRC, 91 Wis. 2d 462, 283 N.W.2d 603 (Ct. App. 1979).
227.56 AnnotationA court may not find facts under sub. (1); the court may only receive evidence to determine whether to remand to the agency for further fact finding. State Public Intervenor v. DNR, 171 Wis. 2d 243, 490 N.W.2d 770 (Ct. App. 1992).
227.56 AnnotationSubstantial evidence is that quantity and quality of evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Written hearsay medical reports are admissible as evidence. Properly admitted evidence may not necessarily constitute substantial evidence. Uncorroborated written hearsay medical reports alone that were controverted by in-person testimony did not constitute substantial evidence to support a board’s decision. Gehin v. Wisconsin Group Insurance Board, 2005 WI 16, 278 Wis. 2d 111, 692 N.W.2d 572, 03-0226.
227.56 AnnotationBecause sub. (3) specifically describes in the last sentence the circumstances under which a court may dismiss an amended petition without a motion from the respondent, the only reasonable construction of sub. (3) is that the court may not dismiss the original petition without a timely motion from the respondent asserting that the petition does not allege facts showing that the petitioner is aggrieved. The circuit court does not have the authority to dismiss the petition sua sponte on the ground that it does not allege facts showing that the petitioner is aggrieved. Jackson v. LIRC, 2006 WI App 97, 293 Wis. 2d 332, 715 N.W.2d 654, 05-2123.
227.56 AnnotationHearsay in Administrative Hearings. Maloney. Wis. Law. Sept. 2005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Jackson v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2006 WI App 97 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
Jackson v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2006 WI App 97 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “We conclude as follows: (1) Dismissal of a petition for failure to state facts showing the petitioner is aggrieved is governed by Wis. Stat. § 227.56 (3), and that provision does not permit the circuit court to sua sponte dismiss a petition without a motion from the respondent…”
Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. State, 2011 WI 54 (Wis. 2011). “14; see Wis. Stat. § 227.56 (1). ¶ 21. The court of appeals concluded that, while the conservancies did not use any of the above methods, they did provide evidence to the DNR suggesting that Well No.”
Shoreline Park Pres., Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Admin., 537 N.W.2d 388 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “3 The trial court's denial of Shoreline's motion to supplement the record before the department under § 227.56(1), Stats., is a discretionary determination 4 *763 that we will sustain — even if we disagree with the result — -if it appears that the department examined the…”
Friends of the Black River Forest v. DNR, 2022 WI 52 (Wis. 2022). “"6 Kohler intervened and filed a motion to dismiss under Wis. Stat. § 227.56 (3), arguing that the Friends were not an "aggrieved" party because, as relevant here, they failed to satisfy both the "injury in fact" and "zone of interest" prongs of the test for Chapter 227 standing.”
Meteor Timber, LLC v. Wisconsin Div. of Hearings & Appeals, 2022 WI App 5 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 227.56(1), and the motion asking the court to supplement the record under WIS.”
Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2010 WI App 85 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). “The conservancies did not present information to the permit decision makers that would have flagged Well #7 as possibly affecting a navigable waterway, either before issuance of the 2005 permit, at a contested case hearing on the 2005 permit, or by using Wis. Stat. § 227.56 to…”
Gimenez v. State of Wisconsin Med. Examining Bd., 600 N.W.2d 28 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “, service requirements applies only to cases involving § 227.56, Stats., where additional evidence is to be considered.”
State of Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 490 N.W.2d 770 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “We conclude that when the circuit court was presented with additional evidence which met the requirements of sec. 227.56(1), Stats., 1 the court could not receive such evidence and decide the petitions for review on the basis of such evidence but could only order that the…”
Tomah-Mauston Broad. Co. v. Eklund, 422 N.W.2d 169 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “Except where the agency acts upon order of the trial court under sec. 227.56(1), Stats., a further decision by an agency upon remand from the trial court is an administrative decision subject to review under sec.”
Town of Delavan v. City of Delavan, 466 N.W.2d 227 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “The next day, the city moved to dismiss the town and the district, based on lack of standing, from all consolidated ch. 227, Stats., reviews. The town and the district opposed the motion, asserting that as to the contested *416 case ruling, the motion was untimely under sec.”
Brown Cnty. v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 405 N.W.2d 752 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “…the term "unfair labor practices” appears in s. 111.07 the term "prohibited practices” shall be substituted. 6 Now sec. 227.56(1), Stats.”
DeCecco v. Bd. of Regents, 442 N.W.2d 585 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “without a jury and shall be confined to the record, except that in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, testimony thereon may be taken in the court and, if leave is granted to take such testimony, depositions and written interrogatories may be taken…”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.56(1) — 9 cases
Shoreline Park Pres., Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Admin., 537 N.W.2d 388 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “3 The trial court's denial of Shoreline's motion to supplement the record before the department under § 227.56(1), Stats., is a discretionary determination 4 *763 that we will sustain — even if we disagree with the result — -if it appears that the department examined the…”
Meteor Timber, LLC v. Wisconsin Div. of Hearings & Appeals, 2022 WI App 5 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 227.56(1), and the motion asking the court to supplement the record under WIS.”
Gimenez v. State of Wisconsin Med. Examining Bd., 600 N.W.2d 28 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “, service requirements applies only to cases involving § 227.56, Stats., where additional evidence is to be considered.”
State of Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 490 N.W.2d 770 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “We conclude that when the circuit court was presented with additional evidence which met the requirements of sec. 227.56(1), Stats., 1 the court could not receive such evidence and decide the petitions for review on the basis of such evidence but could only order that the…”
Tomah-Mauston Broad. Co. v. Eklund, 422 N.W.2d 169 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “Except where the agency acts upon order of the trial court under sec. 227.56(1), Stats., a further decision by an agency upon remand from the trial court is an administrative decision subject to review under sec.”
— Wis. Stat. § 227.56(3) — 4 cases
Jackson v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2006 WI App 97 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “We conclude as follows: (1) Dismissal of a petition for failure to state facts showing the petitioner is aggrieved is governed by Wis. Stat. § 227.56 (3), and that provision does not permit the circuit court to sua sponte dismiss a petition without a motion from the respondent…”
Town of Delavan v. City of Delavan, 466 N.W.2d 227 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). “The next day, the city moved to dismiss the town and the district, based on lack of standing, from all consolidated ch. 227, Stats., reviews. The town and the district opposed the motion, asserting that as to the contested *416 case ruling, the motion was untimely under sec.”
Secors, Inc. v. City of Wausau (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
Russell Beckman v. Wisconsin Crime Victims Rights Bd. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
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.