quite clearly the result of a contested process and involved the submission of evidence and arguments by both parties. The DWD issued what it deemed "the department's review of the initial determination and final determination in this matter." ¶ 33. The other cases Plaintiffs cite for the proposition that discretionary agency decisions are not "final agency decisions subject to judicial review" are likewise inapplicable and unpersuasive. See Wis. Environmental Decade v. Public Service Comm'n, 93 Wis. 2d 650, 659, 287 N.W.2d 737 (1980) (determining that an order denying a petition for an investigation did not qualify as an administrative decision for purposes of judicial review under Wis. Stat. Chap. 227); Tyler v. State Dep't. of Public Welfare, 19 Wis. 2d 166, 119 N.W.2d 460 (1963) (<HOLDING>); and Wisconsin Professional Police Ass'n v.
holding that there is no constitutional right to representation by counsel at a parole revocation holding that habeas petition challenging the state boards decision to defer his scheduled parole release date was rendered moot by prisoners release from custody on parole and subsequent incarceration for violating his parole holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding that parole is not a right in pennsylvania holding that there was no legal right to court review of parole board decision because there is no legal right to release on parole