Kubista v. State Annuity & Inv. Bd.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1950 |
| Citation | 257 Wis. 359,43 N.W.2d 470 |
| Parties | KUBISTA, v. STATE ANNUITY & INVESTMENT BOARD. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Thomas E. Fairchild, Atty. Gen., J. R. Wedlake, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Beggs & Lawton, Madison, for respondent.
The first contention made by the appellant before the trial court, and also upon this appeal, is that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition filed in the circuit court for the following reasons: (1) That the State Annuity and Investment Board is not an agency within the meaning of sec. 227.01, Stats.; (2) that the subject matter does not involve a 'decision' which can be reviewed under ch. 227, Stats.; and (3) that the case is not a proper subject for a declaratory ruling under sec. 227.06, Stats.
As to point (1) the pertinent part of sec. 227.01, Stats., reads as follows: '(1) 'Agency' includes * * * and all other boards, commissions, departments and officers having statewide jurisdiction and authorized by statute to exercise rule-making powers. * * *'
Sec. 42.69, Stats. of 1945, provides in part:
Under these provisions of the statute it is clear that the board is an 'agency' within the meaning of the statute.
Upon the trial the petitioner conceded that the matter did not involve a 'decision' under the rule in Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 253 Wis. 584, 34 N.W.2d 844. The petitioner contended that the petition was for a review of a declaratory ruling by the board under the provision of sec. 227.06, Stats. The appellant contended that the petition filed with the board was not designated as a petition for a declaratory ruling; that no reference was made to sec. 227.06, Stats. relating to declaratory rulings in either petition; that the board has not issued or filed any rule whatsoever nor has it been requested to issue any declaratory ruling. It should be pointed out that no reference is made in the petition to sec. 227.16, Stats.
The trial court held that the petition was sufficient under sec. 227.06, Stats., and that the matter should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. With that determination was agree. Perhaps some confusion resulted because the board had not made and filed proper rules. The provisions for review under ch. 227, Stats., should be liberally construed. Lake Superior District Power Co. v. Public Service Commission, 250 Wis. 39, 26 N.W.2d 278, 170 A.L.R. 680. If the petition was not sufficiently definite the board could have moved to have it made more definite and certain or it could have requested that the petitioner elect under which section of ch. 227 he wished to proceed. It did neither. It does not appear that the board was in any way misled as to the relief sought by the petitioner and we hold that the petition should not have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The petitions above referred to appear in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
...(1959), 6 Wis.2d 243, 94 N.W.2d 609, 95 N.W.2d 788.20 (1962), 17 Wis.2d 120, 115 N.W.2d 498.21 Kubista v. State Annuity and Investment Board (1950), 257 Wis. 359, 43 N.W.2d 470.22 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise (1970 Supp.), sec. 22.00--4, p. 722.23 The petition also alleges that the or......
-
Friends of the Black River Forest v. Kohler Co.
... ... of any agency decision related to the management of ... state-owned lands. The Department separately contends the ... Friends lack ... Ass'n, 479 U.S. 388, 394-95 (1987); Holmes v Sec ... Inv Prot Corp, 503 U.S. 258, 288 (1992) (Scalia, J, ... concurring in ... also WED I, 69 Wis.2d at 13 ( citing Kubista v. State ... Annuity & Inv. Bd., 257 Wis. 359, 43 N.W.2d 470 ... ...
-
Friends of the Black River Forest v. Kohler Co.
...Fox, 112 Wis. 2d at 524, 334 N.W.2d 532 ); see also WED I, 69 Wis. 2d at 13, 230 N.W.2d 243 (citing Kubista v. State Annuity & Inv. Bd., 257 Wis. 359, 43 N.W.2d 470 (1950) ). At the same time, "while standing is to be liberally construed, the claim asserted must be 402 Wis.2d 606 legally re......
-
Frankenthal v. Wisconsin Real Estate Brokers' Bd.
...deem that the cases of Wisconsin Tel. Co. v. Wisconsin E. R. Board, 1948, 253 Wis. 584, 34 N.W.2d 844; and Kubista v. State Annuity & Inv. Board, 1950, 257 Wis. 359, 43 N.W.2d 470, decide the issue contra to such contention of the attorney The Wisconsin Tel. Co. case held that it was the le......