Go Syfert

Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 68.09 (2026)

Review of determination

✓ current as of July 2026

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

68.0968.09 Review of determination.

68.09(1)(1) Initial determination. If a request for review is made under s. 68.08, the determination to be reviewed shall be termed an initial determination.

68.09(2)(2) Who shall make review. A review under this section may be made by the officer, employee, agent, agency, committee, board, commission or body who made the initial determination. However, an independent review of such initial determination by another person, committee or agency of the municipality may be provided by the municipality.

68.09(3)(3) When to make review. The municipal authority shall review the initial determination within 15 days of receipt of a request for review. The time for review may be extended by agreement with the person aggrieved.

68.09(4)(4) Right to present evidence and argument. The person aggrieved may file with the request for review or within the time agreed with the municipal authority written evidence and argument in support of the person’s position with respect to the initial determination.

68.09(5)(5) Decision on review. The municipal authority may affirm, reverse or modify the initial determination and shall mail or deliver to the person aggrieved a copy of the municipal authority’s decision on review, which shall state the reasons for such decision. The decision shall advise the person aggrieved of the right to appeal the decision, the time within which appeal shall be taken and the office or person with whom notice of appeal shall be filed.

68.09 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 295, 421.

68.09 AnnotationThe 15-day time limit in sub. (3) is mandatory, not directory. The municipal authority’s failure to comply with the 15-day deadline for completing the paper review under sub. (3) violated the plaintiff’s right to due process and warranted reversal of the panel’s decision. Koenig v. Pierce County Department of Human Services, 2016 WI App 23, 367 Wis. 2d 633, 877 N.W.2d 632, 15-0410.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2022 · leading case: Koenig v. Pierce Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Koenig v. Pierce Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 44× “]" The October 10 correspondence further advised Koenig she had a right to submit written evidence and argument in support of her position, under Wis. Stat. § 68.09 (4), but she needed to do so by October 15 "for full consideration.”

Zelman v. Town of Erin, 917 N.W.2d 222 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “§ 68.09, together with WIS. STAT. §§ 68.07 and 68.”

City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 604 N.W.2d 870 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “Later, when the administrative review appeals board conducted its § 68.09, Stats., review, the mayor was one of three individuals who decided to uphold the common council's resolution.”

Teriaca v. Milwaukee Employe's Ret. Sys., 2003 WI App 145 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 68.09 (1999-2000), [3] and demanded an independent review of *838 her case.”

Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64 (Wis. 2022). · cites it 2× “09 (2), which governs municipal administrative review, states, "[a] review under this section may be made by the officer, employee, agent, agency, committee, board, commission or body who made the initial determination." No similar explicit language appears in § 5.”

Teriaca v. Milwaukee Employes' Ret. Sys./Annuity & Pension Bd., 2003 WI App 145 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “After the Board determined that Teriaca was no longer eligible for DDR benefits, Teriaca availed herself of the procedure set forth in Wis. Stat. § 68.09 (1999-2000), 3 and demanded an independent review of *838 her case.”

Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64 (Wis. 2022). · cites it 2× “09 (2), which governs municipal administrative review, states, "[a] review under this section may be made by the officer, employee, agent, agency, committee, board, commission or body who made the initial determination." No similar explicit language appears in § 5.”

Apys Cars, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 68.09(5) (2017-18),1 after ACI submitted its “request for review of determination” under WIS.”

— Wis. Stat. § 68.09(2) — 2 cases

Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64 (Wis. 2022). “09 (2), which governs municipal administrative review, states, "[a] review under this section may be made by the officer, employee, agent, agency, committee, board, commission or body who made the initial determination." No similar explicit language appears in § 5.”

Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64 (Wis. 2022). “09 (2), which governs municipal administrative review, states, "[a] review under this section may be made by the officer, employee, agent, agency, committee, board, commission or body who made the initial determination." No similar explicit language appears in § 5.”

— Wis. Stat. § 68.09(3) — 2 cases

Koenig v. Pierce Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “]" The October 10 correspondence further advised Koenig she had a right to submit written evidence and argument in support of her position, under Wis. Stat. § 68.09 (4), but she needed to do so by October 15 "for full consideration.”

City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 604 N.W.2d 870 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Later, when the administrative review appeals board conducted its § 68.09, Stats., review, the mayor was one of three individuals who decided to uphold the common council's resolution.”

— Wis. Stat. § 68.09(5) — 2 cases

Zelman v. Town of Erin, 917 N.W.2d 222 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 68.09, together with WIS. STAT. §§ 68.07 and 68.”

Apys Cars, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 68.09(5) (2017-18),1 after ACI submitted its “request for review of determination” under WIS.”

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.