227.52 Judicial review; decisions reviewable. Administrative decisions which adversely affect the substantial interests of any person, whether by action or inaction, whether affirmative or negative in form, are subject to review as provided in this chapter, except as otherwise provided by law and except for the following:

(1) Decisions of the department of revenue other than decisions relating to alcohol beverage permits issued under ch. 125.

(2) Decisions of the department of employee trust funds.

(3) Those decisions of the division of banking that are subject to review, prior to any judicial review, by the banking institutions review board, and decisions of the division of banking relating to savings banks or savings and loan associations, but no other institutions subject to the jurisdiction of the division of banking.

(4) Decisions of the office of credit unions.

(6) Decisions of the chairperson of the elections commission or the chairperson's designee.

(7) Those decisions of the department of workforce development which are subject to review, prior to any judicial review, by the labor and industry review commission.

History: 1975 c. 414; 1977 c. 187, 418; 1981 c. 79, 96, 391; 1983 a. 27, 122, 183, 538; 1985 a. 182 s. 35; Stats. 1985 s. 227.52; 1995 a. 27 ss. 6233, 9130 (4); 1997 a. 3, 27; 1999 a. 9, 182; 2003 a. 33; 2007 a. 1; 2015 a. 118; 2019 a. 65.

Cross-reference: See s. 50.03 (11) for review under subchapter I of chapter 50.

An order of the tax appeals commission refusing to dismiss proceedings for lack of jurisdiction was not appealable because the merits of the case were still pending. Pasch v. DOR, 58 Wis. 2d 346, 206 N.W.2d 157 (1973).

The right to appeal from an administrative agency's determination is statutory and does not exist except where expressly given and cannot be extended to cases not within the statute. Pasch v. DOR, 58 Wis. 2d 346, 206 N.W.2d 157 (1973).

The requirements of ss. 227.15 and 227.16 (1) [now ss. 227.52 and 227.53 (1)] for standing to seek review of an administrative decision do not create separate and independent criteria, but both sections essentially require that to be a person aggrieved for standing purposes, one must have an interest recognized by law in the subject matter that is injuriously affected by the decision. Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 69 Wis. 2d 1, 230 N.W.2d 243 (1975).

An order of the employment relations commission directing an election and determining the bargaining unit under s. 111.70 (4) (d) is not reviewable. West Allis v. WERC, 72 Wis. 2d 268, 240 N.W.2d 416 (1976).

An unconditional interim order by the public service commission fixing utility rates pending final determination was reviewable when no provision was made for the refund of excess interim rates. Friends of the Earth v. PSC, 78 Wis. 2d 388, 254 N.W.2d 299 (1977).

The decision of the PSC not to investigate under ss. 196.28 and 196.29 [now s. 196.28 (1) to (3)] was a nonreviewable, discretionary determination. Reviewable decisions are defined. Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 93 Wis. 2d 650, 287 N.W.2d 737 (1980).

In Ashwaubenon v. Public Service Commission, 22 Wis.2d 38 (1963), the requirement of a contested case was abrogated as a condition to judicial review of administrative agency decisions, but the legislative declaration that decisions of administrative agencies be reviewed under s. 227.15 [now s. 227.52] envisions a review of a decision that must be supported by a record and be based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by s. 227.10 [now 227.47]. Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 93 Wis. 2d 650, 287 N.W.2d 737 (1980).

A court order setting aside an administrative order and remanding the case to the administrative agency was appealable as of right. Bearns v. DILHR, 102 Wis. 2d 70, 306 N.W.2d 22 (1981).

Because an appointment to office was an administrative decision, a challenge of appointment could only be made under this chapter. State ex rel. Frederick v. Cox, 111 Wis. 2d 264, 330 N.W.2d 603 (Ct. App. 1982).

A declaratory judgment action was improper when the plaintiff did not pursue any available remedies under ch. 227. Turkow v. DNR, 216 Wis. 2d 273, 576 N.W.2d 288 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-1149.

The division of hearings and appeals is not a line agency charged with the administration and enforcement of the statutes involved and does not have experience administering the underlying program. Unless the line agency has adopted DHA's interpretation as its own, de novo review of a DHA decision is appropriate. Buettner v. DHFS, 2003 WI App 90, 264 Wis. 2d 700, 663 N.W.2d 282, 01-0981.

Unlike factual questions, or questions with legal issues intertwined with factual determinations, neither party bears any burden when the issue before the court is whether an administrative agency exceeded the scope of its powers in promulgating a rule. The court examines the enabling statute de novo to ascertain whether the statute grants express or implied authorization for the rule. Any reasonable doubt pertaining to an agency's implied powers are resolved against the agency. Wisconsin Citizens Concerned for Cranes and Doves v. DNR, 2004 WI 40, 270 Wis. 2d 318, 677 N.W.2d 612, 02-1166.

Although this section does not require that an administrative decision be final to be subject to judicial review, case law has established that the legislative intent was to limit judicial review to final orders of an agency. A final order for purposes of judicial review directly affects the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a person. One aspect of this standard is whether the person would have another opportunity for judicial review, whereas an interlocutory order is one under which the substantial rights of the parties remain undetermined and the cause is retained for further action. Sierra Club v. DNR, 2007 WI App 181, 304 Wis. 2d 614, 736 N.W.2d 918, 06-2653.

In this case, where the analysis set forth in an order of the Public Service Commission (PSC) denying a petition for rehearing under s. 227.49 was analogous to the PSC's decision in the underlying matter, the decision denying the rehearing met the definition of an administrative decision for purposes of being subject to judicial review under this section. The substantial evidence standard under s. 227.57 (6) therefore applied with respect to review of the PSC's findings of fact underlying the PSC's decision on whether to grant rehearing. Town of Holland v. Public Service Commission, 2018 WI App 38, 382 Wis. 2d 799, 913 N.W.2d 914, 17-1129.

Administrative decisions eligible for judicial review in Wisconsin. Klitzke, 61 MLR 405.