Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 68.13 (2026)
Judicial review
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
68.13(1)(1) Any party to a proceeding resulting in a final determination may seek review thereof by certiorari within 30 days of receipt of the final determination. The court may affirm or reverse the final determination, or remand to the decision maker for further proceedings consistent with the court’s decision.
68.13(2)(2) If review is sought of a final determination, the record of the proceedings shall be transcribed at the expense of the person seeking review. A transcript shall be supplied to anyone requesting the same at the requester’s expense. If the person seeking review establishes impecuniousness to the satisfaction of the reviewing court, the court may order the proceedings transcribed at the expense of the municipality and the person seeking review shall be furnished a free copy of the transcript. By stipulation, the court may order a synopsis of the proceedings in lieu of a transcript. The court may otherwise limit the requirement for a transcript.
68.13 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1981: Reference in sub. (1) to a “writ” of certiorari has been removed because that remedy is now available in an ordinary action. See s. 781.01, stats., and the note thereto. [Bill 613-A]
68.13 AnnotationThe requirement of procedural due process is met if the state provides adequate post-deprivation remedies. Certiorari under this section is an adequate remedy. Failure to pursue certiorari under this section barred a claim that procedural due process was denied. Thorp v. Town of Lebanon, 2000 WI 60, 235 Wis. 2d 610, 612 N.W.2d 59, 98-2358.
68.13 AnnotationA litigant cannot bring a claim for money damages grounded upon 42 USC 1983 in a certiorari proceeding under this chapter. Failure to join a section 1983 claim with a certiorari action under this chapter does not preclude the claimant from bringing a section 1983 claim. Hanlon v. Town of Milton, 2000 WI 61, 235 Wis. 2d 597, 612 N.W.2d 44, 99-1980.
68.13 AnnotationThis section unambiguously provides authority for the remand of an agency final order for further proceedings necessary to insure the legislative purpose set forth in s. 68.001. The circuit court had authority to remand a s. 68.12 final determination based upon a reconsideration motion that presented newly discovered recantation evidence. Jay M.H. v. Winnebago County Department of Health & Human Services, 2006 WI App 66, 292 Wis. 2d 417, 714 N.W.2d 241, 05-0871.
68.13 AnnotationA court should not defer to a municipality’s interpretation of a statewide standard. Doing so would give one locality disproportionate authority to influence state standards established by the legislature. If the language of the municipality’s ordinance appears to be unique and does not parrot a state statute but rather the language was drafted by the municipality in an effort to address a local concern, applying a presumption of correctness, the court will defer to the municipality’s interpretation if it is reasonable. Ottman v. Town of Primrose, 2011 WI 18, 332 Wis. 2d 3, 796 N.W.2d 411, 08-3182.
68.13 AnnotationA municipality’s interpretation of its own ordinance is unreasonable if it is contrary to law, if it is clearly contrary to the intent, history, or purpose of the ordinance, or if it is without a rational basis. An interpretation that directly contravenes the words of the ordinance is also unreasonable. Ottman v. Town of Primrose, 2011 WI 18, 332 Wis. 2d 3, 796 N.W.2d 411, 08-3182.
68.13 AnnotationA certiorari court cannot order a board to perform a certain act. Thus, the court on certiorari review was without statutory authority to provide the equitable relief requested in this case. Certiorari exists to test the validity of decisions by administrative or quasi-judicial bodies. The scope of certiorari extends to questions of jurisdiction, power, and authority of the inferior tribunal to do the action complained of, as well as questions relating to the irregularity of the proceedings. Guerrero v. City of Kenosha Housing Authority, 2011 WI App 138, 337 Wis. 2d 484, 805 N.W.2d 127, 10-2305.
68.13 AnnotationUnder sub. (1) and s. 68.12 (2), the decision subject to certiorari review is the final determination made by the administrative panel. However, there are two exceptions to the general rule that a petition for certiorari must go to the body whose acts are being reviewed: 1) when specially provided by statute, or in particular cases of necessity, as when the board or body whose acts are sought to be reviewed is not continuing or has ceased to exist; and 2) when service requirements are ambiguous, and there is an absence of a clear statutory identity of the board or body. Koenig v. Pierce County Department of Human Services, 2016 WI App 23, 367 Wis. 2d 633, 877 N.W.2d 632, 15-0410.
68.13 AnnotationThe 30-day period during which certiorari review is available for a town board’s highway order to lay out, alter, or discontinue a highway begins to run on the date that the highway order is recorded by the register of deeds. Pulera v. Town of Richmond, 2017 WI 61, 375 Wis. 2d 676, 896 N.W.2d 342, 15-1016. But see Zelman v. Town of Erin, 2018 WI App 50, 383 Wis. 2d 679, 917 N.W.2d 222, 17-1529.
68.13 AnnotationAn oral vote of a town board does not constitute a “final determination” under sub. (1) because it does not satisfy the description of “final determination” under s. 68.12, and attendance at a public hearing where the oral vote occurs does not constitute “receipt” of the decision. Zelman v. Town of Erin, 2018 WI App 50, 383 Wis. 2d 679, 917 N.W.2d 222, 17-1529.
68.13 AnnotationRemand to the municipality or administrative tribunal for further hearings is appropriate when the defect in the proceedings is one that can be cured, but, on remand, supplementation of the record by the government decision-maker with new evidence or to assert new grounds is not permitted. Outright reversal is appropriate when the due process violation cannot be cured on remand. This includes reversals in which the factual evidence fails to support the municipality’s or administrative tribunal’s decision. Because the decision-maker cannot supplement the record with new evidence or new grounds, the defect cannot be cured. Hartland Sportsmen’s Club, Inc. v. City of Delafield, 2020 WI App 44, 393 Wis. 2d 496, 947 N.W.2d 214, 19-0740.
68.13 AnnotationOn certiorari review, a court is limited to determining whether: 1) the governmental body’s decision was within its jurisdiction; 2) the body acted according to law; 3) the decision was arbitrary or oppressive; and 4) the evidence of record substantiates the body’s decision. On certiorari review, there is a presumption of correctness and validity to a municipality’s decision. Grycowski v. Milwaukee Employees’ Retirement System/Annuity & Pension Board, 2021 WI App 7, 395 Wis. 2d 722, 953 N.W.2d 904, 19-2295.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Margaret Pulera v. Town of Richmond, 2017 WI 61 (Wis. 2017).
Margaret Pulera v. Town of Richmond, 2017 WI 61 (Wis. 2017). “6 This interpretation best comports with the language and structure of Wis. Stat. § 68.13 and Wis. Stat. § 82.15 .”
Dawson v. Town of Jackson, 2011 WI 77 (Wis. 2011). “15 contemplates certiorari review under Wis. Stat. § 68.13 as the prescribed method for review of "a highway order, or a refusal to issue such an order.”
Thorp v. Town of Lebanon, 2000 WI 60 (Wis. 2000). “The County also argues that the Thorps are barred from making an equal protection claim because they did not avail themselves of an adequate state law remedy, namely certiorari review under Wis. Stat. § 68.13 . In support of that proposition, the County notably cites to Weber,…”
Ottman v. Town of Primrose, 2011 WI 18 (Wis. 2011). “Although they acknowledged that jurisdiction was founded on Wis. Stat. § 68.13 , they asserted for the first time that the Primrose Ordinances "constitute a pervasive regulation of land use" and therefore "the scope of certiorari review is modified under Wis.”
Koenig v. Pierce Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “On March 7, 2014, she filed a "Complaint for Judicial Review by Certio-rari Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 68.13 ," naming DHS as the defendant/respondent.”
Hanlon v. Town of Milton, 2000 WI 61 (Wis. 2000). “In October 1990 Hanlon sought certiorari review in Rock County Circuit Court, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 68.13 (1989-90). In an order issued in November 1991 the circuit court reversed the Board's decision.”
Zelman v. Town of Erin, 917 N.W.2d 222 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 68.13, WIS. STAT. § 68.12 is the only section in WIS.”
Guerrero v. City of Kenosha Hous. Auth., 2011 WI App 138 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). “Guerrero appealed the Board's decision to the circuit court under Wis. Stat. § 68.13 , which allows for a judicial appeal of administrative proceedings.”
Cohn v. Town of Randall, 2001 WI App 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “17 provides for judicial review under Wis. Stat. § 68.13 of highway orders of the town laying out, altering, widening or discontinuing any highway.”
Jay M. H. v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2006 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “then exercised his right, under Wis. Stat. § 68.13 , to judicial review of the ALJ final determination.”
Acevedo v. City of Kenosha, 2011 WI App 10 (Wis. 2010). “It instead alleges that it is an action brought pursuant to the judicial review statute, Wis. Stat. § 68.13 . In any case, as with City News and Lake City, Acevedo's position is not bolstered by the language in either statute.”
City of Waukesha v. City of Waukesha Bd. of Review, 2021 WI 89 (Wis. 2021). “In Wis. Stat. § 68.13 (1) the legislature provides that "[a]ny party to a proceeding resulting in a final determination may seek review thereof by certiorari within 30 days of receipt of the final determination" (emphasis added).”
— Wis. Stat. § 68.13(1) — 19 cases
Zelman v. Town of Erin, 917 N.W.2d 222 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 68.13, WIS. STAT. § 68.12 is the only section in WIS.”
Dawson v. Town of Jackson, 2011 WI 77 (Wis. 2011). “15 contemplates certiorari review under Wis. Stat. § 68.13 as the prescribed method for review of "a highway order, or a refusal to issue such an order.”
Margaret Pulera v. Town of Richmond, 2017 WI 61 (Wis. 2017). “6 This interpretation best comports with the language and structure of Wis. Stat. § 68.13 and Wis. Stat. § 82.15 .”
Thorp v. Town of Lebanon, 2000 WI 60 (Wis. 2000). “The County also argues that the Thorps are barred from making an equal protection claim because they did not avail themselves of an adequate state law remedy, namely certiorari review under Wis. Stat. § 68.13 . In support of that proposition, the County notably cites to Weber,…”
Ottman v. Town of Primrose, 2011 WI 18 (Wis. 2011). “Although they acknowledged that jurisdiction was founded on Wis. Stat. § 68.13 , they asserted for the first time that the Primrose Ordinances "constitute a pervasive regulation of land use" and therefore "the scope of certiorari review is modified under Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 68.13(2) — 2 cases
Ottman v. Town of Primrose, 2011 WI 18 (Wis. 2011). “Although they acknowledged that jurisdiction was founded on Wis. Stat. § 68.13 , they asserted for the first time that the Primrose Ordinances "constitute a pervasive regulation of land use" and therefore "the scope of certiorari review is modified under Wis.”
Stop the Ongoing Mine Permit v. Town of Ashford Bd. of Appeals, 932 N.W.2d 193 (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.