State ex rel. Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules, 75--520
| Decision Date | 30 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--520,75--520 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin ex rel. WISCONSIN'S ENVIRONMENTAL DECADE, INC., Petitioner, v. JOINT COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Melvin L. Goldberg, Madison (argued), on brief, for petitioner.
Jack R. DeWitt (argued), Jon P. Axelrod, John H. Lederer and DeWitt, McAndrews & Porter, S.C., Madison, on brief, for respondents.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., and Charles D. Hoornstra, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief, for amicus curiae.
George Bunn, Madison, on brief, for amicus curiae for the Center for Public Representation
On November 21, 1975, petitioner Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc., (WED), petitioned this court for leave to commence an original action challenging the suspension of a certain administrative rule promulgated by the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR) by a legislative committee known as the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) on constitutional grounds. A hearing on the petition was held on December 18, 1975, at which a stipulation of facts was submitted. On December 19, 1975, this court granted the petition based on the stipulated facts. On April 12, 1976, the matter was argued before the court.
JCRAR is a legislative committee consisting of four senators and five representatives having the powers enumerated in sec. 13.56, Stats. The critical power of JCRAR is that of entertaining 'complaints' concerning administrative rules and, if it considers such complaints 'meritorious and worthy of attention,' suspending those rules until the entire legislature has either repealed the challenged rules or failed to do so. If the legislature fails to repeal, the rule goes back into effect.
The rules involved in the present case came into being as a result of a DILHR-supported study of means of alleviating energy shortages through modification of building standards. Among the standards proposed by the study was one entitled 'Thermal Performance Standards' which would have limited hear loss to 13 B.T.U.'s per square foot per hour. DILHR held appropriate hearings on this proposal, among others, and adopted an amended version as Wis.Admin.Code sec. IND 51.02(16) 1 on November 18, 1974, effective January 1, 1975.
In January, 1975, JCRAR received 'complaints' with respect to the rule alleging among other things that it was ineffective and discriminatory. Upon the urging of JCRAR, DILHR reconsidered the rule but refused to change it. In April, 1975, JCRAR held public hearins on the rule and on May 29, 1975, voted to suspend the rule and thus to submit the matter to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seitzinger v. Community Health Network
...in the present case. [1] ¶ 17. Appellate courts will generally decline to decide moot issues. State ex rel. Wis. Envtl. Decade v. JCRAR, 73 Wis. 2d 234, 236, 243 N.W.2d 497, 498 (1976). An issue is moot when a determination is sought that will have no practical effect on an existing legal c......
-
Milwaukee Brewers v. Dept. of Health & Social Services
...183, 285 N.W.2d 133, 137 (1979). An appellate court will usually decline to decide a moot case. State ex rel. Wis. Environmental Decade v. JCRAR, 73 Wis.2d 234, 236, 243 N.W.2d 497, 498 (1976). The state asserts that this case is moot because the Menominee Valley prison project has been leg......
-
State v. Dye
...in this case makes the double jeopardy issue moot and we decline to address it further. 4 See State ex rel. Wis. Envtl. Decade v. Joint Comm., 73 Wis.2d 234, 236, 243 N.W.2d 497, 498 (1976). Dye next argues that "the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable ......
-
Allen v. Waukesha County Bd. of Adjustment
...dispositive renders the issues raised by the Board moot and they will not be addressed. See State ex rel. Wis. Envtl. Decade, Inc. v. Joint Comm., 73 Wis.2d 234, 236, 243 N.W.2d 497, 498 (1976). By the Court.--Order Not recommended for publication in the official reports. 1 While the circui......