125.23 (6) (b) and may revoke a common carrier permit as provided in s. 125.22 (3) (b). (b) The division may, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, revoke any permit issued under s. 125.27 (5) or 125.51 (5) (f) to a person designated by the owner or operator of racetrack grounds as provided in s. 125.27 (5) (b) or 125.51 (5) (f) 2. if the person’s designation has terminated or the owner or operator of the racetrack grounds has otherwise rescinded the person’s designation. (bm) The division may, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew any permit issued by it under this chapter if the permittee has shipped alcohol beverages to any person in another state in violation of that state’s law. (c) A revocation, suspension, or refusal to renew a permit under par. (a), (b), or (bm) is a contested case under ch. 227. (6) REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR WHOLESALERS’ PERMITS FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS. (a) Any person may file a sworn written complaint with the division alleging that an intoxicating liquor wholesaler has violated s. 125.54 (7) (a). The complaint shall identify the specific legal basis for the complaint and sufficient facts for the division to determine whether there is cause to find that a violation has occurred. The division shall provide a copy of the complaint to any wholesaler against whom allegations are made, along with notice of the time period under par. (b) to show cause why the wholesaler’s permit should not be revoked or suspended or to request a hearing. (b) Within 30 days of receiving a copy of the complaint under par. (a), any wholesaler against whom allegations are made may
Updated 23-24 Wis. Stats.
18
file a sworn written response or a written request for an evidentiary hearing before the division under s. 227.44. (c) Subject to pars. (d) 1. and (dm), if no request for an evidentiary hearing is made under par. (b), within 60 days of receiving any response under par. (b) or, if no response is made, within 60 days of the date on which a response or request for hearing is due under par. (b), the division shall make a written decision as to whether a violation has occurred and either dismiss the complaint or take action under par. (e). Any decision under this paragraph shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall state all reasons for the decision. The division shall provide a copy of the decision to the complainant and to any wholesaler against whom allegations are made. (cm) Subject to pars. (d) 2. and (dm), if a request for an evidentiary hearing is made under par. (b), the hearing shall be conducted in the manner specified for a contested case under ss. 227.44 to 227.50, except that the hearing shall be conducted within 45 days of receiving the request for hearing under par. (b) and the division shall make its written decision, including whether a violation has occurred and whether the complaint is dismissed or action is taken under par. (e), within 15 days after the hearing. In addition to service of the decision as provided under s. 227.48, the division shall provide a copy of the decision to the complainant. (d) 1. If no request for an evidentiary hearing is made under par. (b), within 60 days of receiving any response under par. (b) or, if no response is made, within 60 days of the date on which a response or request for hearing is due under par. (b), the division may extend the time period for making a decision under par. (c) by an additional 60 days if the division provides notice within the time period specified in par. (c) that an additional 60 days is necessary for investigation. 2. If a request for an evidentiary hearing is made under par. (b), within 45 days of receiving the request for hearing under par. (b), the division may extend the time period for conducting the hearing by an additional 45 days if the division provides notice within 45 days of receiving the request for hearing under par. (b) that an additional 45 days is necessary for investigation. (dm) Within 45 days of receiving any response or request for hearing under par. (b) or, if no response or request for hearing is made, within 45 days of the date on which a response or request for hearing is due under par. (b), the division may elect to file a complaint in circuit court under sub. (4) that includes all allegations of the complaint under par. (a) for which the division determines there is cause to find that a violation of s. 125.54 (7) (a) has occurred. If the division files a complaint in circuit court as provided under this paragraph, the division shall not conduct a hearing under par. (cm) or make a written decision under par. (c), but shall proceed with the matter as provided under sub. (4). (e) If the division finds the allegations under par. (a) true and sufficient, the division shall either suspend for not less than 10 days nor more than 90 days or revoke the wholesaler’s permit, and give notice of the suspension or revocation to the wholesaler. (f) A revocation or suspension proceeding under this subsection is a contested case under ch. 227, except that ss. 227.44 to 227.50 apply to a proceeding under this subsection only if a request for an evidentiary hearing is made under par. (b). (7) REAPPLICATION FOR PERMIT AFTER REVOCATION. If the division revokes any permit issued under this chapter, the applicant or permit holder may not reapply for the permit for a period of 6 months after the date of the revocation. History: 1981 c. 79; 1983 a. 516; 1987 a. 93; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27 s. 9126 (19); 1995 a. 417, 448; 1997 a. 27, 35, 166, 187; 1999 a. 9; 2005 a. 14, 25, 442; 2007 a. 20 s. 9121 (6) (a); 2007 a. 85; 2009 a. 12; 2021 a. 39; 2023 a. 73, 146. Discussing due process and equal protection rights of licensees. Tavern League of Wisconsin v. City of Madison, 131 Wis. 2d 477, 389 N.W.2d 54 (Ct. App. 1986). A license never should have been issued when a notice of application had not
May 22, 2026, are designated by NOTES. (Published 5-22-26)
19
Updated 23-24 Wis. Stats.
been published as required under s. 125.04 (3) (g), and a license issued without publication is void under s. 125.04 (2). Selling liquor under a void license constitutes a violation of s. 125.66 (1). Under this section, a renewal licensee, if refused, is guaranteed a right to be heard by the municipality, and the municipality must show cause for refusal, but a new licensee, if refused, has no such guarantee. When an original license is void, the applicant is a new licensee. Williams v. City of Lake Geneva, 2002 WI App 95, 253 Wis. 2d 618, 643 N.W.2d 864, 01-1733. Notices sent by the city did not violate the requirement in sub. (3) that the “council shall notify the licensee in writing of the municipality’s intention not to renew the license” because they stated that “there is a possibility that your application may be denied.” As the matter cannot be affirmatively decided before the hearing, it is of course only a possibility that the applicant’s license will not be renewed at the time the notice is sent. Questions, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI App 126, 336 Wis. 2d 654, 807 N.W.2d 131, 10-0707. A town must renew a license, if the proper application is made and the fees are paid, unless it revokes, suspends, or non-renews the license, following the procedures outlined in this section. Section 125.10 (1) does not give towns the authority to unilaterally modify the described premises in an individual license upon renewal of that license. A town must either pass a regulation or an ordinance under s. 125.10 or it must find grounds for revocation or nonrenewal under this section. Wisconsin Dolls, LLC v. Town of Dell Prairie, 2012 WI 76, 342 Wis. 2d 350, 815 N.W.2d 690, 10-2900. Acting upon a citizen complaint to revoke a liquor license that was not sworn, as required under sub. (2) (ag), constituted a fundamental error that deprived the licensing committee of jurisdiction over the matter. Park 6 LLC v. City of Racine, 2012 WI App 123, 344 Wis. 2d 661, 824 N.W.2d 903, 11-2282. Certiorari is the correct standard of review for a court to apply when, pursuant to sub. (2) (d), it reviews a municipal decision not to renew an alcohol license. Nowell v. City of Wausau, 2013 WI 88, 351 Wis. 2d 1, 838 N.W.2d 852, 11-1045. Sub. (2) (a) 2.’s prohibition of operating a disorderly house was not unconstitutionally vague as applied in this case. The statute’s legislative purpose concerns the health and safety of the public and its enforcement is aimed at public health. There was no doubt that the conduct cited in this case was disorderly, riotous, indecent, or improper. Such behavior falls squarely within the ambit of the statute, particularly given the public health and safety concerns involved. Hegwood v. City of Eau Claire, 676 F.3d 600 (2012).