893.73 Actions contesting governmental decisions. (1) The following actions are barred unless brought within 180 days after the adoption of the order, resolution, ordinance or ordinance amendment contested: (a) An action to contest the validity of a county zoning ordinance or amendment, if s. 59.69 (14) applies to the action. (b) An action to review the validity of proceedings for division or dissolution of a town under s. 60.03. (2) The following actions are barred unless brought within 90 days after the adoption of the order, annexation ordinance or final determination of the action contested: (a) An action under s. 60.73 contesting an act of a town board or the department of natural resources in the establishment of a town sanitary district. (b) An action to contest the validity of an annexation, if s. 66.0217 (11) applies to the action. History: 1979 c. 323; 1981 c. 346; 1983 a. 532; 1995 a. 201; 1999 a. 150 s. 672; 2003 a. 214. NOTE: 2003 Wis. Act 214, which affected this section, contains extensive explanatory notes. Judicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This section has been created to consolidate into one provision of ch. 893 six types of actions presently outside of the chapter involving the contesting of governmental decisions. The actions have been broken down into 2 separate categories, those which must be commenced within 180 days of the adoption of the governmental decision and those that must be commenced within 90 days of the decision. LIMITATIONS ON CIVIL ACTIONS; CLAIMS AGAINST GOVERNMENT
The previous 180-day period within which to contest a county zoning ordinance or amendment remains unchanged. The one-year period in which to commence an action to contest the proceedings to constitute or divide a town has been shortened to 180 days (see note following s. 60.05 (4)). The previous 180-day time period to commence an action contesting the validity of the creation of a soil and water district remains unchanged (see note following s. 92.16). The previous 20-day period to commence an action to set aside an action of a town board to establish a sanitary district has been increased to 90 days (see note following s. 60.304). The previous 60-day period within which to commence an action to contest the validity of an annexation has been increased to 90 days (see note following s. 66.021 (10) (a)). The 90-day period to commence an action contesting the validity of an order regarding a highway or highway records remains unchanged (see note following s. 80.34 (2)). [Bill 326-A] Under sub. (2), “adoption” refers to a legislative body’s approval of an annexation ordinance. The statute of limitations begins to run on that date. Town of Sheboygan v. City of Sheboygan, 150 Wis. 2d 210, 441 N.W.2d 752 (Ct. App. 1989).
893.735 Action by prisoner contesting a governmental decision. (1) In this section, “prisoner” has the meaning given in s. 801.02 (7) (a) 2. (2) An action seeking a remedy available by certiorari made on behalf of a prisoner is barred unless commenced within 45 days after the cause of action accrues. The 45-day period shall begin on the date of the decision or disposition, except that the court may extend the period by as many days as the prisoner proves have elapsed between the decision or disposition and the prisoner’s actual notice of the decision or disposition. Subject to no contact requirements of a court or the department of corrections, a prisoner in administrative confinement, program segregation or adjustment segregation may communicate by 1st class mail, in accordance with department of corrections’ rules or with written policies of the custodian of the prisoner, with a 3rd party outside the institution regarding the action or special proceeding. (3) In this section, an action seeking a remedy available by certiorari is commenced at the time that the prisoner files a petition seeking a writ of certiorari with a court. History: 1997 a. 133. The words “on behalf of” in sub. (2) are not restricted to third-party conduct. The time limit applies to actions filed by a prisoner on behalf of himself or herself. State ex rel. Collins v. Cooke, 2000 WI App 101, 235 Wis. 2d 63, 611 N.W.2d 774, 991212. Persons seeking certiorari review of probation revocation are prisoners subject to the 45-day filing deadline under sub. (2). State ex rel. Cramer v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2000 WI 86, 236 Wis. 2d 473, 613 N.W.2d 591, 99-1089. The definition of “prisoner” in s. 801.02 (7) (a) 2. does not include a Wisconsin inmate sent to an out-of-state county jail, and, therefore, the 45-day limit does not apply to the inmate. State ex rel. Frohwirth v. Wisconsin Parole Commission, 2000 WI App 139, 237 Wis. 2d 627, 614 N.W.2d 541, 99-2079. When a prison inmate places a certiorari petition in the prison’s mailbox for forwarding to the circuit court, the 45-day limit under sub. (2) is tolled. However, other defects in filing may nonetheless result in rejection by the court. State ex rel. Shimkus v. Sondalle, 2000 WI App 262, 240 Wis. 2d 310, 622 N.W.2d 763, 000841. To invoke the tolling of the 45-day limit under sub. (2), an inmate must present an affidavit or some other sufficient evidence of the date on which the petition was deposited in the institution mailbox. State ex rel. Shimkus v. Sondalle, 2000 WI App 262, 240 Wis. 2d 310, 622 N.W.2d 763, 00-0841. A verified petition, being a sworn statement, that was unchallenged by the state was sufficient to establish the number of days between the date of the challenged decision and the prisoner’s receipt of it. There were no circumstances justifying not extending the 45-day limit pursuant to sub. (2). State ex rel. Johnson v. Litscher, 2001 WI App 47, 241 Wis. 2d 407, 625 N.W.2d 887, 00-1485. That out-of-state inmates have a longer filing deadline for challenging parole revocation under Frohwirth, 2000 WI App 139, does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. State ex rel. Saffold v. Schwarz, 2001 WI App 56, 241 Wis. 2d 253, 625 N.W.2d 333, 99-2945. The statute of limitations is tolled while a prisoner waits for the Department of Justice to provide the certification required by ss. 801.02 (7) (d) and 802.05 (3) (c). State ex rel. Locklear v. Schwarz, 2001 WI App 74, 242 Wis. 2d 327, 629 N.W.2d 30, 99-3211. For purposes of sub. (2), tolling of the 45-day clock for prisoners to commence actions begins when the documents over which prisoners have control have been mailed, and all of the documents over which prisoners have no control have been requested by the prisoners. The time begins running again when those documents are within the prisoners’ control. State ex rel. Walker v. McCaughtry, 2001 WI App 110, 244 Wis. 2d 177, 629 N.W.2d 17, 00-1439. To invoke the tolling of the 45-day limit under sub. (2), a prisoner must submit proper documents and comply with statutory fee or fee-waiver requirements. State ex rel. Tyler v. Bett, 2002 WI App 234, 257 Wis. 2d 606, 652 N.W.2d 800, 01-2808. Petitioners were entitled to equitable relief when they timely asked counsel to file for certiorari, counsel promised to do so, and due to counsel’s failure to timely file they were denied certiorari review. The 45-day time limit for the filing of a writ of certiorari was equitably tolled as of the date that counsel promised to file for certiorari review. State ex rel. Griffin v. Smith, 2004 WI 36, 270 Wis. 2d 235, 677 N.W.2d 259, 01-2345. The combined effects of subs. (2) and (3) and s. 801.02 (7) (c) is that the administrative-process documents expansively described in s. 801.02 (7) (c) are required to timely pursue a prepayment waiver, and they are also required under this section to timely commence a writ action. Mitchell v. Buesgen, 2024 WI App 14, 411 Wis. 2d 269, 4 N.W.3d 596, 22-1076.