Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 68.11 (2026)
Hearing on administrative appeal
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
68.11(1)(1) Time of hearing. The municipality shall provide the appellant a hearing on an appeal under s. 68.10 within 15 days of receipt of the notice of appeal filed or mailed under s. 68.10 and shall serve the appellant with notice of such hearing by mail or personal service at least 10 days before such hearing.
68.11(2)(2) Conduct of hearing. At the hearing, the appellant and the municipal authority may be represented by an attorney and may present evidence and call and examine witnesses and cross-examine witnesses of the other party. Such witnesses shall be sworn by the person conducting the hearing. The municipality shall provide an impartial decision maker, who may be an officer, committee, board, commission or the governing body who did not participate in making or reviewing the initial determination, who shall make the decision on administrative appeal. The decision maker may issue subpoenas. An appellant’s attorney of record may issue a subpoena to compel the attendance of a witness or the production of evidence. A subpoena issued by an attorney must be in substantially the same form as provided in s. 805.07 (4) and must be served in the manner provided in s. 805.07 (5). The attorney shall, at the time of issuance, send a copy of the subpoena to the decision maker. The hearing may, however, be conducted by an impartial person, committee, board or commission designated to conduct the hearing and report to the decision maker.
68.11(3)(3) Record of hearing. The person conducting the hearing or a person employed for that purpose shall take notes of the testimony and shall mark and preserve all exhibits. The person conducting the hearing may, and upon request of the appellant shall, cause the proceedings to be taken by a stenographer or by a recording device, the expense thereof to be paid by the municipality.
68.11 AnnotationThe review of a city council decision by an administrative review appeals board that included the mayor did not violate the requirement of an impartial decision maker when the mayor did not participate in making or reviewing the resolution. City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 231 Wis. 2d 93, 604 N.W.2d 870 (Ct. App. 1999), 97-1504.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Koenig v. Pierce Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016).
Koenig v. Pierce Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “13(1), in turn, states that " [a]ny party to a proceeding resulting in a final determination may seek review thereof by certio-rari[.]" Under these statutes, the decision subject to certiorari review is the final determination made by the administrative panel.”
Zelman v. Town of Erin, 917 N.W.2d 222 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “There is no suggestion by the parties that the September 19, 2016 Town Board hearing was a hearing under Wis. Stat. § 68.11 or a hearing "substantially meeting the requirements of [§] 68.”
Ottman v. Town of Primrose, 2011 WI 18 (Wis. 2011). “Particularly in regard to Section 68.11(2), in regard to an impartial decision maker.”
City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 604 N.W.2d 870 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “See § 68.11(1), Stats. After the hearing is held, the reviewing body has twenty days to make its final determination.”
Oneida Seven Generations Corp. v. City of Green Bay, 2015 WI 50 (Wis. 2015). “The City denied the request, determining that the hearings before the Plan Commission and the Common Council substantially complied with Wis. Stat. § 68.11 and met constitutional standards and protections.”
Margaret Pulera v. Town of Richmond, 2017 WI 61 (Wis. 2017). “However, municipal authorities do not have § 68.11 hearings when considering whether to issue highway orders, and therefore this provision is inapplicable here.”
Hanlon v. Town of Milton, 2000 WI 61 (Wis. 2000). “The circuit court found the Board's decision to have been arbitrary, oppressive, and unreasonable and that the Board failed to comply with requirements for conducting a hearing on administrative review as set forth in Wis. Stat. § 68.11 (1989-90). The circuit court ordered that…”
Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 340 N.W.2d 722 (Wis. 1983). “NOTES [1] Sec. 68.11, Stats., provides: "Sec. 68.11 Hearing on administrative appeal.”
Tee & Bee, Inc. v. City of West Allis, 571 N.W.2d 438 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Tee & Bee objected to the form of the hearing, claiming that it violated § 68.11, Stats. Specifically, Tee & Bee contended that allowing the Common Council, which had made the initial licensing determination, to review its own determination violated the requirement of § 68.”
Benjean F. Lara v. City of Milwaukee (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “§§ 68.11, 68.12. Lara argued that this was a case of credibility; the IHE heard the evidence and determined Lara and Dr.”
Stop the Ongoing Mine Permit v. Town of Ashford Bd. of Appeals, 932 N.W.2d 193 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “" STOMP argues that under Wis. Stat. § 68.11 (3), the expense is to be paid by the municipality.”
Sullivan, Stacy v. Town of Stockholm (W.D. Wis. 2019). “On June 2, the Sullivans sent the Board a notice of appeal and demand for review of determination, as provided under Wisconsin Statute § 68.11. The Board denied review without a hearing four days later.”
— Wis. Stat. § 68.11(1) — 2 cases
Koenig v. Pierce Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “13(1), in turn, states that " [a]ny party to a proceeding resulting in a final determination may seek review thereof by certio-rari[.]" Under these statutes, the decision subject to certiorari review is the final determination made by the administrative panel.”
City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 604 N.W.2d 870 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “See § 68.11(1), Stats. After the hearing is held, the reviewing body has twenty days to make its final determination.”
— Wis. Stat. § 68.11(2) — 6 cases
Ottman v. Town of Primrose, 2011 WI 18 (Wis. 2011). “Particularly in regard to Section 68.11(2), in regard to an impartial decision maker.”
City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 604 N.W.2d 870 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “See § 68.11(1), Stats. After the hearing is held, the reviewing body has twenty days to make its final determination.”
Koenig v. Pierce Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “13(1), in turn, states that " [a]ny party to a proceeding resulting in a final determination may seek review thereof by certio-rari[.]" Under these statutes, the decision subject to certiorari review is the final determination made by the administrative panel.”
Zelman v. Town of Erin, 917 N.W.2d 222 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “There is no suggestion by the parties that the September 19, 2016 Town Board hearing was a hearing under Wis. Stat. § 68.11 or a hearing "substantially meeting the requirements of [§] 68.”
Tee & Bee, Inc. v. City of West Allis, 571 N.W.2d 438 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Tee & Bee objected to the form of the hearing, claiming that it violated § 68.11, Stats. Specifically, Tee & Bee contended that allowing the Common Council, which had made the initial licensing determination, to review its own determination violated the requirement of § 68.”
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.