Court Opinion

ID: 9520420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:39:33.374704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:14.003898
License: Public Domain

*518aThe following opinion was filed October 6, 1961:
Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). On reaching petitioner’s motion for rehearing this court requested the parties to submit briefs on the following questions:
“1. If the said denial of access was arbitrary or capricious, would petitioner be entitled to seek an award of damages in the instant proceeding?
“2. In what type of proceeding, other than the instant proceeding, could petitioner have sought judicial review of said denial?”
Both parties submitted briefs. Both conceded that if the denial of access was arbitrary and capricious the decision of the administrative agency would be void, her rights would not be affected by the denial, and petitioner would not be entitled to any damages.
Sec. 227.15, Stats., and the sections immediately following provide for judicial review of administrative decisions. Respondent submits that such review is available to this appellant and the remedy so provided is the exclusive remedy. Appellant acknowledges that she may have this remedy but it will not produce any money in compensation for the property rights which she alleges have been seized; wherefore she submits that she may substitute another remedy better adapted to her desire.
We hold that the relief of judicial review of the administrative decision provided by statute is the exclusive remedy, with right of appeal from the reviewing court to the supreme court, per sec. 227.21, Stats. Appellant did not exhaust her remedy of judicial review. The circuit court correctly dismissed appellant’s proceeding for other relief.
Motion for rehearing denied without costs.