Court Opinion

ID: 9883835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:21:59.864118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:31.993718
License: Public Domain

*635STEINMETZ, J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the majority’s opinion which disposes of this case on a procedural basis.
Sec. 147.20(1), Stats., provides that any permittee may secure review by the department of the reasonableness or necessity of any condition of a permit. Further, sec. 147.20(2) specifies: “The decisions of the department issued under this section shall be subject to judicial review as provided in ss. 227.15 to 227.21.”
Sec. 227.05(2) (e), Stats., appears to require as a condition precedent for judicial review that a review had been requested before the department. The relevant language in the statute cited by the majority is as follows : “provided the validity of the rule involved was duly challenged in the proceeding before the agency . . . .” (Emphasis added.)
The majority opinion attempts to explain what is an obvious conflict in the two sections. I would hold that sec. 227.05(1), Stats., is clear, controlling and eliminates the conflict. It states: “A declaratory judgment may be rendered whether or not the plaintiff has first requested the agency to pass upon the validity of the rule in question.” (Emphasis added.)
Since the majority has decided this case on procedural grounds, I will not comment on the merits of the case dealing with the jurisdiction of the department to issue the permits as it did. I believe, however, that the correct procedures were followed below and that, consequently, this court should reach the substantive issue.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice John L. Coffey joins in this dissent.