Chapter 227

227.50 227.50 Ex parte communications in contested cases.

227.50(1) (1) 

227.50(1)(a) (a) Except as provided in par. (am), in a contested case, no ex parte communication relative to the merits or a threat or offer of reward shall be made, before a decision is rendered, to the hearing examiner or any other official or employee of the agency who is involved in the decision-making process, by any of the following:

227.50(1)(a)1m. 1m. An official of the agency or any other public employee or official engaged in prosecution or advocacy in connection with the matter under consideration or a factually related matter. This subdivision does not apply to an advisory staff which does not participate in the proceeding.

227.50(1)(a)2. 2. A party to the proceeding, or any person who directly or indirectly would have a substantial interest in the proposed agency action or an authorized representative or counsel.

227.50(1)(am) (am) Paragraph (a) does not apply to any of the following:

227.50(1)(am)1. 1. An ex parte communication which is authorized or required by statute.

227.50(1)(am)2. 2. An ex parte communication by an official or employee of an agency which is conducting a class 1 proceeding.

227.50(1)(am)3. 3. Any communication made to an agency in response to a request by the agency for information required in the ordinary course of its regulatory functions by rule of the agency.

227.50(1)(am)4. 4. In a contested case before the public service commission, an ex parte communication by or to any official or employee of the commission other than the hearing examiner, the chairperson, or a commissioner.

227.50(2) (2) A hearing examiner or other agency official or employee involved in the decision-making process who receives an ex parte communication in violation of sub. (1) shall place on the record of the pending matter the communication, if written, a memorandum stating the substance of the communication, if oral, all written responses to the communication and a memorandum stating the substance of all oral responses made, and also shall advise all parties that the material has been placed on the record; however, any writing or memorandum which would not be admissible into the record if presented at the hearing shall not be placed in the record, but notice of the substance or nature of the communication shall be given to all parties. Any party desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to do so, if the party requests the opportunity for rebuttal within 10 days after notice of the communication. The hearing examiner or agency official or employee may, if deeming it necessary to eliminate the effect of an ex parte communication received, withdraw from the proceeding, in which case a successor shall be assigned.

227.50 History History: 1975 c. 94 s. 3; 1975 c. 414; 1977 c. 418; 1985 a. 182 s. 33t; Stats. 1985 s. 227.50; 2013 a. 28; 2015 a. 55.

227.50 Annotation The failure to notify the parties of the receipt of an ex parte communication was harmless error. Seebach v. PSC, 97 Wis. 2d 712, 295 N.W.2d 753 (Ct. App. 1980).

227.51 227.51 Licenses.

227.51(1) (1) When the grant, denial or renewal of a license is required to be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing, the provisions of this chapter concerning contested cases apply.

227.51(2) (2) When a licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license or a new license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license does not expire until the application has been finally acted upon by the agency, and, if the application is denied or the terms of the new license are limited, until the last day for seeking review of the agency decision or a later date fixed by order of the reviewing court.

227.51(3) (3) 

227.51(3)(a) (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, no revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal of any license is lawful unless the agency gives notice by mail to the licensee of facts or conduct which warrant the intended action and the licensee is given an opportunity to show compliance with all lawful requirements for the retention of the license.

227.51(3)(b) (b) If an agency finds that public health, safety, or welfare imperatively requires emergency action and incorporates a finding to that effect in its order, the agency may order the summary suspension of a license pending proceedings for revocation or other action. Such proceedings shall be promptly instituted and determined.

227.51(3)(c) (c) If an agency finds that public health, safety, or welfare imperatively requires emergency action and incorporates a finding to that effect in its order, the agency may order the summary limitation of a license pending proceedings for revocation or other action. Such proceedings shall be promptly instituted and determined. This paragraph applies only to an agency described in s. 440.03 (1).

227.51 History History: 1975 c. 414; 1985 a. 182 s. 33t; Stats. 1985 s. 227.51; 2017 a. 328.

227.51 Cross-reference Cross-reference: See also chs. SPS 1 and 2, Wis. adm. code.

227.51 Annotation An applicant denied a racetrack license had a right to a contested case hearing. Metropolitan Greyhound Management Corp. v. Wisconsin Racing Board, 157 Wis. 2d 678, 460 N.W.2d 802 (Ct. App. 1990).

227.51 Annotation A change to the statutes or rules that might negatively affect a permit holder does not itself constitute a revocation for the purpose of this section. LeClair v. Natural Resources Board, 168 Wis. 2d 227, 483 N.W.2d 278 (1992).

227.51 Annotation Discussing summary suspension of occupational licenses. 76 Atty. Gen. 110.

227.52 227.52 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:

227.52(1) (1) Decisions of the department of revenue.

227.52(2) (2) Decisions of the department of employee trust funds.

227.52(3) (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.

227.52(4) (4) Decisions of the office of credit unions.

227.52(6) (6) Decisions of the chairperson of the elections commission or the chairperson’s designee.

227.52(7) (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.

227.52 History 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; 2023 a. 73.

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

227.52 Annotation 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).

227.52 Annotation 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).

227.52 Annotation The requirements of ss. 227.15 and 227.16 (1) [now this section and s. 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). But see Friends of the Black River Forest v. Kohler Co., 2022 WI 52, 402 Wis. 2d 587, 977 N.W.2d 342, 19-0299.

227.52 Annotation 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).

227.52 Annotation 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).

227.52 Annotation The decision of the Public Service Commission not to investigate under ss. 196.28 and 196.29 [now s. 196.28 (1) to (3)] was a nonreviewable, discretionary determination. Defining reviewable decisions. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 93 Wis. 2d 650, 287 N.W.2d 737 (1980).

227.52 Annotation 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 this section] 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 s. 227.47]. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 93 Wis. 2d 650, 287 N.W.2d 737 (1980).

227.52 Annotation 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).

227.52 Annotation 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).

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

227.52 Annotation The Division of Hearings and Appeals (DHA) 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.

227.52 Annotation 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 & Doves v. DNR, 2004 WI 40, 270 Wis. 2d 318, 677 N.W.2d 612, 02-1166.

227.52 Annotation 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.

227.52 Annotation In this case, when 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. PSC, 2018 WI App 38, 382 Wis. 2d 799, 913 N.W.2d 914, 17-1129.

227.52 Annotation An environmental impact statement (EIS), by its plain terms, is not a final decision: it analyzes the effects of, and alternatives to, a proposal without dictating any course of action or establishing the rights of any interested party. Accordingly, a party must wait for some final agency decision it is aggrieved by, such as the issuance or denial of a permit, at which point it may raise its challenges to the EIS in a petition for judicial review of the agency decision that the EIS analyzes. Friends of the Black River Forest v. DNR, 2021 WI App 54, 404 Wis. 2d 590, 964 N.W.2d 342, 19-2434.

227.52 Annotation An agency letter indicating that the petitioner simply must comply with the permitting process to get a permit, which may accrue some cost to the petitioner, does not adversely affect the petitioner’s substantial interests. As a result, the letter is not subject to judicial review. Container Life Cycle Management, LLC v. DNR, 2022 WI 45, 402 Wis. 2d 337, 975 N.W.2d 621, 19-1007.

227.52 Annotation While historically the court has labeled the second prong of the standing test as a “zone of interests” inquiry in line with federal standing principles, this nomenclature has no basis in the text of this section or s. 227.53 and does not accurately describe the test the court has consistently applied. The court grounds the decision instead in the well-established formulation for standing to challenge administrative decisions, which requires the alleged injury to adversely affect an interest that the law recognizes or seeks to regulate or protect. Friends of the Black River Forest v. Kohler Co., 2022 WI 52, 402 Wis. 2d 587, 977 N.W.2d 342, 19-0299.

227.52 Annotation Administrative Decisions Eligible for Judicial Review in Wisconsin. Klitzke. 61 MLR 405 (1978).

227.53 227.53 Parties and proceedings for review.

227.53(1) (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, any person aggrieved by a decision specified in s. 227.52 shall be entitled to judicial review of the decision as provided in this chapter and subject to all of the following procedural requirements:

227.53(1)(a) (a)

227.53(1)(a)1. 1. Proceedings for review shall be instituted by serving a petition therefor personally or by certified mail upon the agency or one of its officials, and filing the petition in the office of the clerk of circuit court for the county where the judicial review proceedings are to be held. If the agency whose decision is sought to be reviewed is the tax appeals commission, the banking institutions review board, or the credit union review board, the petition shall be served upon both the agency whose decision is sought to be reviewed and the corresponding named respondent, as specified under par. (b) 1. to 4.

227.53(1)(a)2. 2. Unless a rehearing is requested under s. 227.49, petitions for review of contested cases shall be served and filed within 30 days after the service of the decision of the agency upon all parties under s. 227.48. If a rehearing is requested under s. 227.49, any party desiring judicial review under this subdivision shall serve and file a petition for review within 30 days after service of the order finally disposing of the application for rehearing, or within 30 days after the final disposition by operation of law of any such application for rehearing. The 30-day period for serving and filing a petition under this subdivision commences on the day after personal service or mailing of the decision by the agency.

227.53(1)(a)2m. 2m. Petitions for review of cases other than contested cases shall be served and filed within 30 days after personal service or mailing of the decision by the agency.

227.53(1)(a)3. 3. If the petitioner is a resident, the proceedings shall be held in the circuit court for the county where the petitioner resides, except that if the petitioner is an agency, the proceedings shall be in the circuit court for the county where the respondent resides and except as provided in ss. 73.0301 (2) (b) 2., 77.59 (6) (b), 108.227 (6), 182.70 (6), and 182.71 (5) (g). If the petitioner is a nonresident, the proceedings shall be held in the county where the property affected by the decision is located or, if no property is affected, in the county where the dispute arose. If all parties stipulate and the court to which the parties desire to transfer the proceedings agrees, the proceedings may be held in the county designated by the parties. If 2 or more petitions for review of the same decision are filed in different counties, the circuit judge for the county in which a petition for review of the decision was first filed shall determine the venue for judicial review of the decision, and shall order transfer or consolidation where appropriate.

227.53(1)(b) (b) The petition shall state the nature of the petitioner’s interest, the facts showing that petitioner is a person aggrieved by the decision, and the grounds specified in s. 227.57 upon which petitioner contends that the decision should be reversed or modified. The petition may be amended, by leave of court, though the time for serving the same has expired. The petition shall be entitled in the name of the person serving it as petitioner and the name of the agency whose decision is sought to be reviewed as respondent, except that in petitions for review of decisions of the following agencies, the latter agency specified shall be the named respondent:

227.53(1)(b)1. 1. The tax appeals commission, the department of revenue.

227.53(1)(b)3. 3. The credit union review board, the office of credit unions.

227.53(1)(b)4. 4. The banking institutions review board, the division of banking, except if the petitioner is the division of banking, the prevailing parties before the banking institutions review board shall be the named respondents.

227.53(1)(c) (c) A copy of the petition shall be served personally or by certified mail or, when service is timely admitted in writing, by first class mail, not later than 30 days after the institution of the proceeding, upon each party who appeared before the agency in the proceeding in which the decision sought to be reviewed was made or upon the party’s attorney of record. A court may not dismiss the proceeding for review solely because of a failure to serve a copy of the petition upon a party or the party’s attorney of record unless the petitioner fails to serve a person listed as a party for purposes of review in the agency’s decision under s. 227.47 or the person’s attorney of record.

227.53(1)(d) (d) Except in the case of the tax appeals commission, the banking institutions review board, and the credit union review board, the agency and all parties to the proceeding before it shall have the right to participate in the proceedings for review. The court may permit other interested persons to intervene. Any person petitioning the court to intervene shall serve a copy of the petition on each party who appeared before the agency and any additional parties to the judicial review at least 5 days prior to the date set for hearing on the petition.

227.53(2) (2) Every person served with the petition for review as provided in this section and who desires to participate in the proceedings for review thereby instituted shall serve upon the petitioner, within 20 days after service of the petition upon such person, a notice of appearance clearly stating the person’s position with reference to each material allegation in the petition and to the affirmance, vacation or modification of the order or decision under review. Such notice, other than by the named respondent, shall also be served on the named respondent and the attorney general, and shall be filed, together with proof of required service thereof, with the clerk of the reviewing court within 10 days after such service. Service of all subsequent papers or notices in such proceeding need be made only upon the petitioner and such other persons as have served and filed the notice as provided in this subsection or have been permitted to intervene in said proceeding, as parties thereto, by order of the reviewing court.

227.53 History History: 1971 c. 243; 1975 c. 94 s. 3; 1975 c. 414; 1977 c. 26 s. 75; 1977 c. 187; 1979 c. 90, 208, 355; 1985 a. 149 s. 10; 1985 a. 182 ss. 37, 57; Stats. 1985 s. 227.53; 1987 a. 27, 313, 399; 1991 a. 221; 1995 a. 27; 1997 a. 27; 1999 a. 9, 85; 2001 a. 38; 2003 a. 33, 118; 2005 a. 253; 2009 a. 324; 2013 a. 36; 2019 a. 65.

227.53 Annotation The circuit court had no jurisdiction [now referred to as competency to exercise jurisdiction] of an appeal from the Tax Appeals Commission when the petition for review was served only on the Department of Revenue and not on the commission within the allowed 30 days. Brachtl v. DOR, 48 Wis. 2d 184, 179 N.W.2d 921 (1970).

227.53 Annotation Service on the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations of a notice of appeal by ordinary mail, when received in time and not promptly objected to was good service. Service on a staff member of the department was sufficient when in the past that individual had represented himself as an agent and as an attorney for the department. Hamilton v. DILHR, 56 Wis. 2d 673, 203 N.W.2d 7 (1973).

227.53 Annotation An appeal will not lie from an order denying a petition to reopen an earlier Public Service Commission order when no appeal was taken from the order or the order denying rehearing within 30 days. Town of Caledonia v. PSC, 56 Wis. 2d 720, 202 N.W.2d 912 (1973).

227.53 Annotation A failure to strictly comply with the caption requirements of sub. (1) does not divest a court of jurisdiction [now referred to as competency to exercise jurisdiction] if all other jurisdictional requirements are met. Evans v. DLAD, 62 Wis. 2d 622, 215 N.W.2d 408 (1974).

227.53 Annotation When the taxpayer failed to serve a copy of his petition for review of a decision and order of the Tax Appeals Commission upon the Department of Revenue within 30 days, the circuit court had no jurisdiction [now referred to as competency to exercise jurisdiction]. Cudahy v. DOR, 66 Wis. 2d 253, 224 N.W.2d 570 (1974).

227.53 Annotation The implied authority of the Public Service Commission under various provisions of ch. 196 to ensure that future supplies of natural gas remain as reasonably adequate and sufficient as practicable indicated a legally recognized interest of environmental group members living in the area affected by the commission order in the future adequacy of their service that was sufficient to provide standing to challenge the commission’s failure to consider conservation alternatives to the proposed priority system. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 69 Wis. 2d 1, 230 N.W.2d 243 (1975). But see Friends of the Black River Forest v. Kohler Co., 2022 WI 52, 402 Wis. 2d 587, 977 N.W.2d 342, 19-0299.

227.53 Annotation A county had standing to challenge the validity of a rule not adopted in conformity with former ss. 227.02 to 227.025, 1983 stats. Dane County v. DHSS, 79 Wis. 2d 323, 255 N.W.2d 539 (1977).

227.53 Annotation “Parties” under former sub. (1) (c), 1975 stats., are those persons affirmatively demonstrating active interest in the proceedings. It was incumbent upon the Public Service Commission to identify those parties. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 84 Wis. 2d 504, 267 N.W.2d 609 (1978).

227.53 Annotation Ch. 801 is inapplicable to judicial review proceedings. Omernick v. DNR, 94 Wis. 2d 309, 287 N.W.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1979).

227.53 Annotation Service on a department rather than on a specific division within the department was sufficient notice under this section. Sunnyview Village v. DOA, 104 Wis. 2d 396, 311 N.W.2d 632 (1981).

227.53 Annotation When the petitioners lacked standing to seek review and the intervenors filed after the time limit in sub. (1), the intervenors could not continue to press their claim. Fox v. DHSS, 112 Wis. 2d 514, 334 N.W.2d 532 (1983).

227.53 Annotation The test for determining whether a party has standing is: 1) whether the agency decision directly causes injury to the interest of the petitioner; and 2) whether the asserted interest is recognized by law. Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc. v. DNR, 144 Wis. 2d 499, 424 N.W.2d 685 (1988).

227.53 Annotation Although it may not be able to sue the state, a county has standing to bring a petition for review because the petition initiates a special proceeding rather than an action. Richland County v. DHSS, 146 Wis. 2d 271, 430 N.W.2d 374 (Ct. App. 1988).

227.53 Annotation Strict compliance with the service requirements of sub. (1) is essential to the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction [now referred to as competency to exercise jurisdiction]. In this case, delivery of a petition to an agency attorney did not meet the requirements for service under sub. (1) (a) 1. Weisensel v. DHSS, 179 Wis. 2d 637, 508 N.W.2d 33 (Ct. App. 1993).

227.53 Annotation The time provisions under sub. (2) are mandatory. Wagner v. Medical Examining Board, 181 Wis. 2d 633, 511 N.W.2d 874 (1994).

227.53 Annotation In the case of a petition for review under this chapter, the petition commences the action rather than continuing it. As an attorney is not authorized to accept the service of process commencing an action, service on the attorney general rather than the agency is insufficient to commence an action for review. Gimenez v. Medical Examining Board, 229 Wis. 2d 312, 600 N.W.2d 28 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1367.

227.53 Annotation Because parties to an agency proceeding have the right to participate in judicial review proceedings under the first sentence in sub. (1) (d), those parties are not part of the group referred to as “other interested persons” in the second sentence and therefore are not entitled to petition for permissive intervention. Under sub. (1) (d), the petition to intervene must be served on all parties to the judicial review at least five days before the hearing on the intervention petition. Citizens’ Utility Board v. PSC, 2003 WI App 206, 267 Wis. 2d 414, 671 N.W.2d 11, 02-1834.

227.53 Annotation As a general matter, sub. (1) (a) 2. affords a petitioner 30 days from the date of service of the original adverse agency decision to file a petition for judicial review. The extended deadline for filing a petition for judicial review applies only when rehearing is requested under s. 227.49. Section 227.49 (1) specifies that the petition for rehearing must be filed, meaning physically delivered to and received by the agency, within 20 days of the initial decision. If a petition for rehearing is not filed within the 20-day time limit, a rehearing is not properly requested under s. 227.49 and the petitioner does not acquire the benefit of the extended deadline for petitioning for judicial review. Currier v. DOR, 2006 WI App 12, 288 Wis. 2d 693, 709 N.W.2d 520, 05-0292.

227.53 Annotation Although sub. (1) did not clearly prescribe which governmental entity must be named and served as respondent in this case, the Division of Hearings and Appeals’ notice gave clear instructions and clarified any ambiguity in sub. (1), making the petitioner’s failure to follow the notice unreasonable and dismissal of the petition for judicial review proper. All Star Rent A Car, Inc. v. DOT, 2006 WI 85, 292 Wis. 2d 615, 716 N.W.2d 506, 03-2668.

227.53 Annotation Sub. (1) (b) does not authorize a circuit court to dismiss a petition for judicial review because it does not show the nature of the petitioner’s interest or state a ground for relief under s. 227.57 unless the petitioner has notice of the possibility of dismissal and a reasonable opportunity to request leave to amend the petition. The claimed deficiency must be raised by motion of the respondent and may not be raised by the court sua sponte. Jackson v. LIRC, 2006 WI App 97, 293 Wis. 2d 332, 715 N.W.2d 654, 05-2123.

227.53 Annotation The 30-day limitation period under sub. (1) (a) 2. is triggered only by s. 227.48 service of the decision upon the parties, which occurs on the date the decision is mailed to the parties, not the various dates of receipt. Once the time limitation is triggered, strict compliance is required. Wisconsin Power & Light Co. v. PSC, 2006 WI App 221, 296 Wis. 2d 705, 725 N.W. 2d 423, 05-3092.

227.53 Annotation While historically the court has labeled the second prong of the standing test as a “zone of interests” inquiry in line with federal standing principles, this nomenclature has no basis in the text of this section or s. 227.52 and does not accurately describe the test the court has consistently applied. The court grounds the decision instead in the well-established formulation for standing to challenge administrative decisions, which requires the alleged injury to adversely affect an interest that the law recognizes or seeks to regulate or protect. Friends of the Black River Forest v. Kohler Co., 2022 WI 52, 402 Wis. 2d 587, 977 N.W.2d 342, 19-0299.