Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) permits reversal when agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.

Pette v. State ex rel. Department of Employment · filed 1998-12-14(c)(ii)(A)

Under § 16-3-114(c)(ii), the reviewing court may reverse an agency’s action if that action was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. ... The commission’s decision in this case was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with the law.

Under section 16-3-114(c), arbitrary-and-capricious review requires examination of the entire record and deference to the hearing examiner's fact findings.

Carrillo v. STATE EX REL. WYO. WKRS'SAFETY · filed 1999-09-21(c)

Under the arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion standard, we are charged with examining the entire record. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Lexis 1999); Utech, 895 P.2d at 452. In our examination and review of a hearing examiner's determination, we defer to the hearing examiner's findings of fact.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) requires a court reviewing a hearing examiner’s denial to set it aside if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.

Bando v. Clure Bros. Furniture · filed 1999-05-18(c)(ii)(A)

Our review of a hearing examiner’s decision is limited to the determination of the matters specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Michie 1997), which mandate that the reviewing court shall: ... (n) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: ... (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; ... We hold that the hearing examiner’s decision to deny benefits was ... not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Agency action is arbitrary and capricious under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) when it is willful, unreasonable, and taken without consideration and in disregard of the facts and circumstances.

Whiteman v. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division, Department of Employment · filed 1999-05-18(c)(ii)(A)

Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if it is “willful and unreasonable, without consideration and in disregard of the facts and circumstances.” ... The OAH’s order was adequately supported by facts, and there was no abuse of discretion by the hearing examiner.

Agency action is arbitrary and capricious under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) when it is willful, unreasonable, and taken without consideration and in disregard of the facts and circumstances.

Armstrong v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 1999-11-30(c)(ii)(A)

Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if it is “willful and unreasonable, without consideration and in disregard of the facts and circumstances.”

Section 16-3-114(c) requires setting aside agency findings that are arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Sechrist v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2001-05-10(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Judicial review of agency action is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999): ... (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: ... (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. ... The hearing examiner's finding of fact that Sechrist had failed to provide this evidence is arbitrary and capricious.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) requires courts to set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.

Quinn v. Securitas Security Services · filed 2007-05-30(c)(ii)(A)

We "[h]old unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be . . . [a]rbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law."

Section 16-3-114 applies substantial-evidence review to factual disputes when both parties submit evidence, while arbitrary-and-capricious review operates as a safety net for agency action prejudicing substantial procedural rights.

Vaughan v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2002-09-06(c)

Judicial review of an agency action is directed by Wyo. Stat, Ann. § 16-38-114. ... That case held that "the substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review ... when factual findings are involved and both parties submit evidence." ... Newman provides that even when the factual findings are found to be sufficient under the substantial evidence test, this court could possibly be required to apply the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a "safety net" to catch other agency action which prejudiced a party's substantial right to the administrative proceeding or which might be contrary to the other WAPA review standards.

Even after finding substantial evidence under subsection (c)(ii)(E), a court further reviews the agency action under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) for arbitrariness, including inconsistent or incomplete findings and due-process violations, and sustains action having a rational basis.

Padilla v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'SAFETY & COMP. DIV. · filed 2004-02-19(c)(ii)(A)

If this Court finds that the agency decision is supported by substantial evidence, then we further review the decision pursuant to § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A). This Court examines the entire record to determine if the agency action was arbitrary or capricious. Under the umbrella of arbitrary and capricious actions would fall potential mistakes such as inconsistent or incomplete findings of fact or any violation of due process. An agency action will not be found to be arbitrary or capricious as long as there is some rational basis for the action.

Section 16-3-114(c) limits factual review to substantial evidence when both parties submit evidence, but retains arbitrary-and-capricious review as a safety net for other agency action prejudicing a substantial procedural right.

Loomer v. STATE EX REL. DIVISION · filed 2004-04-30(c)

W.R.A.P. 12.09(a) limits our review of administrative decisions to a determination of those matters specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2003). ... In appeals where both parties submit evidence at the administrative hearing, Newman mandates that appellate review be limited to application of the substantial evidence test. ... Even when the factual findings are found to be sufficient under the substantial evidence test, Newman further concludes this court may be required to apply the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a "safety net" to catch other agency action which prejudiced a party's substantial right to the administrative proceeding or which might be contrary to the other WAPA review standards.

Even when substantial evidence supports an administrative decision, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) provides safety-net review for agency action violating the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act, including incomplete findings and due-process violations.

State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division v. Pickens · filed 2006-05-04(c)(ii)(A)

Even where substantial evidence supports an administrative decision, this Court applies the arbitrary and capricious standard of review as a “safety net” to catch agency actions that violate the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act. ... “Under the umbrella of arbitrary and capricious actions would fall potential mistakes such as inconsistent or incomplete findings of fact or any violation of due process.”

Even when substantial evidence supports an agency decision, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) operates as a safety net for other violations of the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Rodgers v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2006-05-31(c)(ii)(A)

Even if an agency record contains sufficient evidence to support the administrative decision under the substantial evidence test, this Court applies the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a “safety net” to catch other agency action that may have violated the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii), contested-case fact findings receive substantial-evidence review, while arbitrary-and-capricious review remains available for other defects even when the facts have substantial support.

Alvarez v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'SAFETY · filed 2007-08-06(c)(ii)(A), (E)

The substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from contested case proceedings when factual findings are involved and both parties submit evidence. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions. It is more than a scintilla of evidence. Even if the factual findings are found to be supported by substantial evidence, the ultimate agency decision may still be found to be arbitrary or capricious for other reasons.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) serves as a safety net for agency action prejudicing substantial rights or violating other review standards, but it does not replace substantial-evidence review of true evidentiary questions.

Anderson v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2009-10-06(c)(ii)(A)

We continue to apply the arbitrary and capricious standard as a "safety net" designed to "catch agency action which prejudices a party's substantial rights or which may be contrary to the other W.AP.A. review standards yet is not easily categorized or fit to any one particular standard." ... However, we do not apply the arbitrary and capricious standard to true evidentiary questions.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii) requires substantial-evidence review of agency facts, de novo review of legal conclusions, and arbitrary-and-capricious review as a safety net for agency action not readily corrected under another standard.

Shelest v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2010-01-11(c)(ii)

We review an administrative agency's decision pursuant to the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, which provides in pertinent part that the reviewing court shall: (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii) (LexisNexis 2009). We affirm an agency's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. ... We review an agency's conclusions of law de novo. ... We employ the arbitrary and capricious standard as a "safety net" against agency action that is contrary to law but not readily correctible under the other applicable standards of review.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), abuse-of-discretion review asks whether the agency considered relevant factors and reached a rational decision.

State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division v. Smith · filed 2005-10-18(c)(ii)(A)

‘When an abuse of discretion is the issue on review, the reviewing court examines the question of whether the agency’s ‘decision was based on a consideration of relevant factors and whether it is rational.’ ”

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii) requires setting aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Sanchez v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2006-05-26(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Our review is limited by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2005), which provides, in pertinent part: ... (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: ... (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. ... The Commission’s conclusion that the claimant’s TOS was not causally related to her employment is supported by substantial evidence. Further, the claimant has not demonstrated that the Commission’s decision was otherwise arbitrary and capricious.

Section 16-3-114(c) applies substantial-evidence review to contested-case facts, preserves arbitrary-and-capricious review for other defects, and requires independent correction of agency legal error.

McIntosh v. STATE EX REL. WYO. MED. COM'N · filed 2007-07-12(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Judicial review of agency decisions is limited to those considerations specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2005), which provides in pertinent part: ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. Additionally, we have said: The substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from contested case proceedings when factual findings are involved and both parties submit evidence. ... Even if the factual findings are found to be supported by substantial evidence, the ultimate agency decision may still be found to be arbitrary or capricious for other reasons. ... We do not defer to the agency's determination on issues of law; instead, we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A)'s arbitrary-and-capricious standard requires whole-record review for a rational basis and is more lenient and deferential than substantial-evidence review.

Wilson v. Tyrrell · filed 2011-01-19(c)(ii)(A)

The arbitrary and capricious test requires the reviewing court to review the entire record to determine whether the agency reasonably could have made its finding and order based upon all the evidence before it. The arbitrary and capricious standard is more lenient and deferential to the agency than the substantial evidence standard because it requires only that there be a rational basis for the agency's decision.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A)'s arbitrary-and-capricious standard serves as a safety net against unlawful agency action not readily correctable under the other review standards.

Guier v. Teton County Hosp. Dist. · filed 2011-02-24(c)(ii)(A)

We employ the arbitrary and capricious standard as a safety net against administrative agency action that is contrary to law but not readily correctible under the other applicable standards of review.

Section 16-3-114(c) applies substantial-evidence review to agency facts and preserves arbitrary-and-capricious review as a safety net when the agency excludes clearly admissible evidence or fails to provide adequate findings or legal conclusions.

Wyoming Worker's Compensation Claim of Beall v. Sky Blue Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2012-03-14(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009). We review an administrative agency's findings of fact pursuant to the substantial evidence test. ... The arbitrary and capricious standard of review is used as a "safety net" to catch agency action which prejudices a party's substantial rights or which may be contrary to the other review standards under the Administrative Procedure Act, yet is not easily categorized or fit to any one particular standard. ... The arbitrary and capricious standard applies if the agency failed to admit testimony or other evidence that was clearly admissible, or failed to provide appropriate findings of fact or conclusions of law.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A)’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard functions as a safety net for agency action that prejudices substantial rights or does not fit another review category, including exclusion of clearly admissible evidence and inadequate findings.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of: Kirk Jacobs v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety a · filed 2013-05-17(c)(ii)(A)

The arbitrary and capricious standard of review is used as a “safety net” to catch agency action which prejudices a party’s substantial rights or which may be contrary to the other review standards under the Administrative Procedure Act, yet is not easily categorized or fit to any one particular standard. ... The arbitrary and capricious standard applies if the agency failed to admit testimony or other evidence that was clearly admissible, or failed to provide appropriate findings of fact or conclusions of law.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A)'s arbitrary-and-capricious standard serves as a safety net for agency action that prejudices substantial rights or contravenes other review standards but does not fit neatly within a particular standard.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Green v. State ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Safety & Compensation D · filed 2013-07-09(c)(ii)(A)

The arbitrary and capricious standard of review is used as a "safety net" to catch agency action that prejudices a party's substantial rights or is contrary to the other review standards, but is not easily categorized to a particular standard.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), evidentiary admissibility is committed to the hearing examiner’s discretion, which is abused when the decision is so unfair and inequitable that a reasonable person could not abide it.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Morris v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2012-05-22(c)(ii)(A)

Admissibility of evidence is committed to the discretion of the hearing examiner. A hearing examiner abuses his discretion when his decision shocks the conscience of the court and appears to be so unfair and inequitable that a reasonable person could not abide it.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) requires agency action to be set aside when it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of: Lana M. Tegeler v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Workers' Safety and C · filed 2013-04-04(c)(ii)(A)

Pursuant to the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, a reviewing court shall “Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), abuse-of-discretion review asks whether an agency considered relevant factors and reached a rational decision, and failure to weigh relevant factors is arbitrary and capricious.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Blaine Lee Debyah v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Department of Workforce Services · filed 2015-07-17(c)(ii)(A)

“In evaluating whether an administrative agency abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily or capriciously, we examine the action to determine whether the agency considered relevant factors in making its decision and whether the decision is rational.” ... Thus, the hearing examiner failed to weigh the relevant factors and as a result, abused his discretion by acting arbitrarily and capriciously.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it imposes a discovery dismissal without weighing the relevant competing factors.

Debyah v. State ex rel. Department of workforce Services · filed 2015-07-17(c)(ii)(A)

Though the discovery sought does appear to be relevant, the hearing examiner did not perform this balancing in concluding that the case must be dismissed as a discovery sanction. Thus, the hearing examiner failed to weigh the relevant factors and as a result, abused his discretion by acting arbitrarily and capriciously.

Subsection (c)(ii)(A)'s arbitrary-and-capricious safety net addresses defects such as exclusion of clearly admissible evidence or inadequate findings, not ordinary disputes over record evidence.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of: Jeffrey Baker v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Workforce · filed 2017-05-22(c)(ii)(A)

The arbitrary and capricious standard applies if the agency failed to admit testimony or other evidence that was clearly admissible, or failed to provide appropriate findings of fact or conclusions of law. ... Mr. Baker’s arguments rely exclusively upon record evidence. As a result, the arbitrary and capricious standard is inapplicable.

Informal agency proceedings lacking sworn testimony and cross-examination receive arbitrary-and-capricious review under subsection (c)(ii)(A), requiring only a rational basis in the entire record.

Tayback v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners · filed 2017-09-28(c)(ii)(A)

Given the informality of the proceedings, we review the Board’s decision using § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), which directs the court to set aside an agency decision that is “[ajrbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.” ... The arbitrary and capricious standard is more lenient and deferential to the agency than the substantial evidence standard because it requires only that there be a rational basis for the agency’s decision.

Arbitrary-and-capricious review under subsection (c)(ii)(A) acts as a safety net for prejudicial defects such as inconsistent findings, exclusion of admissible evidence, or denial of due process.

Harborth v. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs., Workers' Comp. Div. · filed 2018-08-22(c)(ii)(A)

We also apply the arbitrary and capricious standard as a "safety net" to catch agency action, "which prejudices a party's substantial rights or which may be contrary to the other review standards under the Administrative Procedure Act, yet is not easily categorized or fit to any one particular standard." ... Examples of arbitrary and capricious actions include making inconsistent or incomplete findings of facts or conclusions of law, failing to admit testimony or other evidence that was clearly admissible, or violating a party's right of due process.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A)’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard does not test evidentiary sufficiency after a contested hearing but acts as a safety net for otherwise uncategorized agency action prejudicing substantial rights.

Hart v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2022-06-27(c)(ii)(A)

Under § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), a court may set aside an agency decision found to be “[a]rbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]” We do not use the arbitrary and capricious standard to review the sufficiency of the evidence to support an agency’s decision following a contested case hearing. ... Rather, the standard acts as a “‘safety net to catch agency action which prejudices a party’s substantial rights or which may be contrary to the other [Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act] review standards yet is not easily categorized or fit to any one particular standard.’”

Informal agency proceedings receive section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) arbitrary-and-capricious review, which examines the entire record for a rational basis and is more deferential than substantial-evidence review.

Jolovich v. Board of County Commissioners of Park County · filed 2022-08-05(c)(ii)(A)

The Board’s action was taken in an informal proceeding, not after a contested case proceeding. ... The arbitrary and capricious test requires the reviewing court to review the entire record to determine whether the agency reasonably could have made its finding and order based upon all the evidence before it. The arbitrary and capricious standard is more lenient and deferential to the agency than the substantial evidence standard because it requires only that there be a rational basis for the agency’s decision.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A)’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard operates as a safety net for agency defects such as excluding clearly admissible evidence or inadequate findings, but not for true evidentiary questions.

McBride v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2022-08-19(c)(ii)(A)

Even if an agency record contains sufficient evidence to support the administrative decision under the substantial evidence test, this Court applies the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a ‘safety net’ to catch other agency action that may have violated the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act. ... This standard applies when “the agency failed to admit testimony or other evidence that was clearly admissible, or failed to provide appropriate findings of fact or conclusions of law.” ... It does not “apply to true evidentiary questions.”

Arbitrary-and-capricious review under subsection (c)(ii)(A) focuses on the evidence, the reasonableness of the agency's judgment, and any legal error, without deference to the district court.

Lemus-Frausto v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Division of Criminal Investigation · filed 2022-12-06(c)(ii)(A)

Further, we afford no special deference to the district court’s decision when we review an agency action, instead reviewing the action as if it came to us directly from the agency. ... Our review must focus on the evidence and consider the reasonableness of the agency’s exercise of judgment while determining if the agency committed any errors of law.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires review of the entire record for substantial evidence and requires agency findings specific enough to permit meaningful judicial review.

Gonzales v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division · filed 1998-12-30(c)

Our task is to examine the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supported the hearing examiner’s findings. ... We will not substitute our judgment for that of the hearing examiner when substantial evidence supports his decision. ... We hold that the hearing examiner’s findings and conclusions were sufficiently specific to enable us to conduct a meaningful review of the final order in accordance with the provisions of § 16-3-114(c).

Section 16-3-114(c) authorizes a court to review an agency decision but not to make the agency’s decision itself, so an order lacking findings that explain the agency’s rationale must be vacated.

Bush v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'COMP. DIV. · filed 2005-09-19(c)

A reviewing court has authority only to review an agency decision, not to make the decision for it. ... Since the instant order contains no findings that adequately explain the rationale for the agency's decision, the agency decision must be vacated.

Section 16-3-114(c) authorizes a court to review an agency decision but not to make the agency’s decision itself, so an order lacking findings that explain the agency’s rationale must be vacated.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Bush v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2005-09-19(c)

A reviewing court has authority only to review an ageney decision, not to make the decision for it. ... Since the instant order contains no findings that adequately explain the rationale for the agency's decision, the ageney decision must be vacated.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires an agency record to contain findings that permit a court to trace the agency’s reasoning from evidence to legal conclusions; absent that information, the decision must be set aside.

State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Legarda · filed 2003-10-15(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Our review is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 20083), which provides: ... () Hold unlawful and set aside agen-ey action, findings and conclusions found to be: ... (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. ... To survive judicial review, the record of a contested agency action must contain such factual findings as would permit a court to follow the agency's reasoning from the evi-dentiary facts on record to its eventual legal conclusions. ... Absent such information, the agency decision must be set aside.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires whole-record review and setting aside arbitrary or unsupported agency action; when inadequate findings prevent review, the proper remedy is remand to the agency for supplemental findings and a new order.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Decker v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Medical Commission · filed 2005-12-15(c)(ii)(A), (E)

The scope of our review is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2005), which provides: ... (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: ... (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a ease reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. ... We therefore remand this matter to the Medical Commission for findings of supplemental facts and the entry of a new, more complete order either granting or denying benefits.

Subsection (c) does not permit judicial review of an issue on which the agency made no findings of fact or conclusions of law.

Mirich v. State of Wyoming Ex Rel., Board of Trustees of Laramie County School District Two and Laramie County Sc · filed 2021-02-18(c)

Consequently, there are no findings of fact or conclusions of law for our review under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c).

In informal proceedings, subsection (c)(ii)(A) does not require formal findings unless another statute or regulation requires them, and an agency may adopt adequate staff findings into its recorded decision.

Monaghan Farms, Inc. v. The Board of County Commissioners of Albany County, Wyoming and ConnectGen Albany County LLC · filed 2023-04-17(c)(ii)(A)

Formal findings are only required in informal administrative proceedings like this one (as opposed to contested case hearings) “if a statute or regulation requires” such findings to be made. ... The Board made findings “upon the record” at the July 13, 2021 meeting when it incorporated the findings in the Staff Report and approved the WECS permit application.

A contested-case decision lacking necessary findings and legal conclusions prevents meaningful substantial-evidence review and is arbitrary and capricious under subsection (c)(ii)(A).

Teton County Assessor v. Aspen S, Llc, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company Kelvin H. Stirn, as Trustee of the Kelvin H. · filed 2024-03-21(c)(ii)(A)

This lack of necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law renders the record insufficient to permit judicial review. ... By failing to follow the WAPA and our precedent requiring sufficient factual findings and conclusions of law, the County Board of Equalization acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires courts reviewing agency fact findings for substantial evidence to examine the entire record.

Wyoming Department of Employment, Unemployment Insurance Commission v. SF Phosphates, Ltd. · filed 1999-01-26(c)(ii)(E)

We review an agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. ... This Court examines the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), a reviewing court does not reweigh conflicting evidence but determines whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion.

Sidwell v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Division · filed 1999-04-14(c)(ii)(E)

On appeal, our task is not to reweigh conflicting evidence, but only to examine the record to determine if substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion. ... We hold that the hearing examiner’s decision denying benefits is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires deference to agency fact findings supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support the agency's conclusion.

Whiteman v. WKR'S SAFETY & COMP. DIV. · filed 1999-05-18(c)(ii)(E)

However, this court will defer to an agency's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E); Clark v. State ex rel. Worker's Safety & Compensation Div., 934 P.2d 1269, 1272 (Wyo.1997). We have defined substantial evidence as "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind can accept as adequate to support an agency's conclusion."

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires examination of the entire record for substantial evidence and forbids substituting judicial judgment for a hearing examiner whose decision has such support.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Leavitt v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 1999-05-25(c)(ii)(E)

We review an administrative agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. Our task is to examine the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supported the hearing examiner’s findings. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the hearing examiner when substantial evidence supports his decision.

Section 16-3-114(c) confines judicial review to whether an agency decision meets governing legal standards and has substantial record support, while technical fact decisions entrusted to an expert agency remain for that agency to make.

Moncrief v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission · filed 1999-05-28(c)

W.R.A.P. 12.09(a) limits judicial review of administrative decisions to a determination of the matters specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Michie 1997). ... When this Court reviews an administrative agency decision, our job is to determine whether the decision meets the applicable legal standards and is supported by substantial evidence in the record. ... Technical decisions relative to the waste of oil and gas resources, however, are for the commission, as the trier of fact made up of experts in the field, to make and not for this Court to decide.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires review of the entire record, including conflicting evidence, to determine whether an agency reasonably reached findings supported by substantial evidence.

Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Borchert · filed 2000-01-14(c)(ii)(E)

We must examine the entire record and consider conflicting and contradictory evidence to determine whether, in light of all the evidence before it, the hearing examiner could have reasonably concluded as it has in this case.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires examination of the entire record for substantial evidence and forbids substituting judicial judgment for supported agency fact findings.

Amoco Production Co. v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization · filed 2001-01-05(c)(ii)(E)

When faced with contested issues of fact, we examine the entire record to determine if the agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence. ... If they are, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the agency and will uphold the factual findings on appeal. ... Substantial evidence is more than a seintilla of evidence; it is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept in support of the conclusions of the agency.

Under section 16-3-114(c), a court reviewing a claimant’s failure of proof examines the entire record but does not reweigh evidence or overturn agency credibility findings unless they are clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Roberts v. R & S Well Service · filed 2001-12-06(c)

Under the arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion standard, we are charged with examining the entire record. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Lexis 1999); Utech, 895 P.2d at 452. ... Roberts is asking this Court to do exactly what it will not do when reviewing an agency decision: reweigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. ... The hearing examiner's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires examination of the entire record for substantial evidence and prohibits substituting judicial judgment for an agency decision supported by relevant evidence a reasonable mind could accept.

In Re Deromedi · filed 2002-05-07(c)(ii)(E)

We examine the entire record to determine if there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings. If the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the agency, and must uphold the findings on appeal. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the conclusions of the agency. It is more than a scintilla of evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) sustains an agency finding when substantial evidence supports it.

Hanks v. City of Casper · filed 2001-01-17(c)(ii)(E)

There is substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner's finding that Appellant failed to prove the workplace injury caused her fibromyalgia.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires whole-record review of agency fact findings and prohibits substituting judicial judgment when relevant evidence a reasonable mind could accept supports those findings.

Kimsey v. Wyoming Department of Transportation · filed 2002-01-30(c)(ii)(E)

In reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine if there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings. Wesaw, ¶ 9. If the agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must uphold the findings on appeal. Id. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept in support of the conclusions of the agency. It is more than a sceintilla of evidence.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), judicial review of Public Service Commission findings ends when the evidence permits a rational view supporting the Commission's conclusions.

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. Wyoming Public Service Commission · filed 2000-02-09(c)(ii)(E)

In recognition of the limited nature of our review, we said, “[t]he judicial function is exhausted when we can find from the evidence a rational view for the conclusions of the PSC.”

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) and (E), a reviewing court examines the entire record for substantial evidence without reassessing witness credibility and separately asks whether the agency acted arbitrarily or abused its discretion.

Frj Corporation v. Mason · filed 2000-04-12(c)(ii)(A), (E)

We conclude, after reviewing the entire record, that the Board's findings that the appellants violated the regulations are supported by substantial evidence. ... As the reviewing court, it is not our duty to reassess the credibility of a witness as long as the decision is supported by relevant evidence. ... The Board provided the appellants with adequate notice of the specific issues and violations with which they had been charged, and the Board did not abuse its discretion when it adjudicated those violations.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii) requires setting aside arbitrary or unsupported agency findings, with factual findings disturbed only when clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

STATE, WORKERS'COMP. DIV. v. Henriksen · filed 2001-04-24(c)(ii)(A), (E)

The standard for appellate review of agency decisions is contained in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999). The reviewing court shall: (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; . . . (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. Section 16-3-114(c)(ii). ... This court will set aside an agency's findings of fact only if they are clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires whole-record substantial-evidence review of agency fact findings and bars a court from substituting its judgment when relevant evidence a reasonable mind could accept supports the agency.

Frontier Refining, Inc. v. Payne · filed 2001-05-17(c)(ii)(E)

Judicial review of ageney action is governed by Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Lexis 1999): ... (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence.... ... When reviewing an agency's findings of fact, this Court applies the substantial evidence standard. Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(i)(E) (Lexis 1999). ... Our task is to examine the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supported the hearing examiner's findings. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the hearing examiner when substantial evidence supports his decision. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions.

A party challenging an agency decision under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) bears the burden of showing that the decision lacks substantial-evidence support.

Wyoming Department of Revenue v. Calhoun · filed 1999-05-26(c)(ii)(E)

The party challenging the sufficiency of the evidence has the burden of demonstrating that the agency’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires entire-record substantial-evidence review and deference to supported hearing-examiner findings, without substituting judicial judgment.

Olivas v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2006-03-16(c)(ii)(E)

We afford respect and deference to a hearing examiner’s findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. Our task is to examine the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supported the hearing examiner’s findings. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the hearing examiner when substantial evidence supports his decision. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s conclusions.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E)'s substantial-evidence standard applies whenever agency fact findings are reviewed and asks whether the entire record contains relevant evidence a reasonable mind could accept in support of the decision.

Chavez v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'SAFETY & COMP. DIV. · filed 2009-03-31(c)(ii)(E)

We recently established that the substantial evidence standard will be applied any time we review an agency's findings of fact, and explained that the appropriate question under this standard is whether there is relevant evidence in the entire record which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's decision.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires examination of the entire record and affirmance when the agency’s factual decision has a rational basis supported by substantial evidence.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Hoff v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2002-09-04(c)(ii)(E)

Judicial review of an agency action is directed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-38-114. ... In appeals where both parties submit evidence at the administrative hearing, Newman mandates that appellate review be limited to application of the substantial evidence test. ... In reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings. If the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must uphold the findings on appeal.

Section 16-3-114 requires whole-record substantial-evidence review when both parties submit evidence and bars a court from substituting its judgment when relevant evidence a reasonable mind could accept supports the agency.

Elk Horn Ranch, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2002-11-18(c)(ii)(E)

Judicial review of an agency action is directed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114. ... The substantial evidence test to be applied is as follows: “In reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency’s findings. If the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must uphold the findings on appeal. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s conclusions. It is more than a scintilla of evidence.”

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires examination of the entire record when agency fact findings are challenged and forbids substituting judicial judgment for supported findings.

Powder River Coal Co. v. Wyoming Department of Revenue · filed 2006-10-31(c)(ii)(E)

When: an appealing party contests an ageney's findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine if the agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires whole-record review for substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence a reasonable mind could accept that may be less than the weight of the evidence.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Decker v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Medical Commission · filed 2008-08-27(c)(ii)(E)

In reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions. It is more than a scintilla of evidence but can be less than the weight of the evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires whole-record review and deference to agency fact findings supported by substantial evidence.

Anderson v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TETON COUNTY · filed 2009-10-06(c)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2007) governs our scope of review and states in pertinent part: (c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. ... To summarize, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency as long as the agency's decision is reasonable under the circumstances. ... We will defer to an agency's findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence.

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) requires deference to agency fact findings that are supported by substantial evidence.

Lietz v. State ex rel. Dep't of Family Servs. · filed 2018-11-27(c)(ii)(E)

We defer to the agency's findings of fact, and we affirm those findings if they are supported by substantial evidence.

Subsection (c)(ii)(E)’s substantial-evidence standard applies whenever a court reviews an agency evidentiary ruling.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of: Kenneth J. Bollinger v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Wor · filed 2019-09-03(c)(ii)(E)

“[T]he substantial evidence standard will be applied any time we review an evidentiary ruling.”

Subsection (c)(ii)(E)’s substantial-evidence test governs factual findings in contested cases when both parties submit evidence.

Camacho v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2019-09-09(c)(ii)(E)

“[T]he substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from WAPA contested case proceedings when factual findings are involved and both parties submit evidence.”

Subsection (c)(ii)(E)’s substantial-evidence standard applies during judicial review, not as the burden of proof in the agency’s contested-case proceeding.

Exaro Energy Iii, Llc v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and Jonah Energy, Llc · filed 2020-01-17(c)(ii)(E)

As we will explain, the “substantial evidence” standard is the standard used during judicial review of agency decisions; it does not apply in contested case proceedings.

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) requires a reviewing court to hold unlawful and set aside agency findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Mcmillan v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2020-06-05(c)(ii)(E)

The Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act governs our review and requires we “[h]old unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be . . . [u]nsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.”

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) requires courts to review an administrative agency’s fact findings under the substantial-evidence test.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of Michael Vinson: Tata Chemicals Soda Ash Partners, Ltd v. Vin · filed 2020-09-28(c)(ii)(E)

Pursuant to this statute, we review an administrative agency’s findings of fact using the substantial evidence test.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) applies substantial-evidence review to agency fact findings and sustains findings supported by record evidence a reasonable mind could accept.

Mccallister v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2022-06-03(c)(ii)(E)

In accordance with § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), we review the agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. ... Findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence if there is relevant evidence in the record which “a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s conclusion.”

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) requires examination of the entire record for relevant evidence a reasonable mind could accept in support of the agency's conclusion.

Bressler v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2023-09-29(c)(ii)(E)

Our review is governed by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, which requires us to “[h]old unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be . . . [u]nsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.” ... Under the substantial evidence test, we examine the entire record for “relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s conclusions.”

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) requires substantial-evidence review of an agency’s factual findings.

Amy V. Romero v. State of Wyoming Ex Rel., Wyoming Department of Transportation · filed 2024-08-06(c)(ii)(E)

When reviewing an agency’s factual findings under § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), we apply the substantial evidence standard.

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) does not ask which appraisal method is best or most accurate; it asks only whether substantial evidence supports the assessor's chosen method.

Johnston II v. Todd Ernst, In His Official Capacity as the Laramie County Assessor · filed 2026-01-06(c)(ii)(E)

In reviewing a valuation method, the task of the appellate court is not to determine which of various appraisal methods is best or most accurately estimates fair market value. The reviewing court only determines whether substantial evidence exists to support use of the chosen method.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires courts to review agency findings of fact for substantial evidence, which exists when the record provides a rational basis for the findings.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim Of: Joseph O. Hayes v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division · filed 2013-08-13(c)(ii)(E)

Findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence if we can discern a rational premise for the findings from the evidence in the record.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) applies substantial-evidence review to factual findings when both parties submit evidence in a WAPA contested case.

Donaghy v. Board of Adjustment of Green River · filed 2002-10-07(c)(ii)(E)

We recently held that the substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act contested case proceedings when factual findings are involved and both parties submit evidence.

When both parties submit evidence in a contested case involving factual issues, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires substantial-evidence review of the entire record and forbids substituting judicial judgment for a supported agency decision.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Himes v. Petro Engineering & Construction · filed 2003-01-15(c)(ii)(E)

When both parties submit evidence in a contested case in which factual issues are involved, we review the case under the substantial evidence test. ... In determining whether substantial evidence supports an agency decision, we examine the entire record. If substantial evidence exists to support an agency decision, we will not substitute our judgment for the judgment of the agency and will affirm the agency decision.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) limits appellate review to the substantial-evidence test when both parties submitted evidence and the dispute concerns agency fact findings, regardless of which party appeals.

Ludwig v. STATE WORKERS'SAFETY & COMP. · filed 2004-03-30(c)(ii)(E)

In appeals where both parties submitted evidence at the hearing below and the dispute is over the soundness of the factual findings of the agency, Newman mandates the appellate review be limited to application of the substantial evidence test.

Section 16-3-114 applies whole-record substantial-evidence review to agency fact findings when both parties submit evidence and bars judicial substitution of judgment for supported findings.

Burd v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2004-09-15(c)(ii)(E)

The parameters for judicial review of an agency action are found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114. ... That case held that “the substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review ... when factual findings are involved and both parties submit evidence.” ... This court is required to review the entire record in making its ultimate determination on appeal.

Section 16-3-114 applies substantial-evidence review to factual findings in a contested case when both parties submit evidence.

Snider v. Kirchhefer · filed 2005-06-30(c)(ii)(E)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114 (LexisNexis 2003). In this instance the substantial evidence test is the proper standard of review. ... The substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act contested case proceedings when factual findings are involved and both parties submit evidence.

When both parties submit evidence at an administrative hearing, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) limits factual review to the substantial-evidence test applied to the entire record regardless of which party appeals.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Cramer v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2005-09-28(c)(ii)(E)

In appeals where both parties submit evidence at an administrative hearing, Newman mandates that appellate review be limited to application of the substantial evidence test. ... This is true regardless of which party appeals from the ageney decision. In addition, this court is required to review the entire record in making its ultimate determination on appeal. ... Upon review of the entire record, we find the hearing officer's denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) applies substantial-evidence review when both parties submit evidence at a contested-case hearing.

Taylor v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2005-11-22(c)(ii)(E)

In cases such as this where both parties submit evidence at the contested case hearing, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) limits review to the substantial-evidence test when both parties submit evidence at the administrative hearing, regardless of which party appeals.

Tarraferro v. STATE, WYOMING MEDICAL COM'N · filed 2005-12-02(c)(ii)(E)

In appeals where both parties submit evidence at the administrative hearing, Newman mandates that appellate review be limited to application of the substantial evidence test.

When both parties submit evidence at an administrative hearing, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) limits factual appellate review to the substantial-evidence test applied to the entire record.

Kruzich v. Martin-Harris Gallery, LLC · filed 2006-01-11(c)(ii)(E)

Further, in appeals where both parties submit evidence at the administrative hearing, appellate review is limited to application of the substantial evidence test. This court is required to review the entire record in making its ultimate determination on appeal.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) applies substantial-evidence review to factual findings in a WAPA contested case when both parties submit evidence.

BP America Production Co. v. Department of Revenue · filed 2006-03-14(c)(ii)(E)

We have held that “the substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from [Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act] contested case proceedings when factual findings are involved and both parties submit evidence.”

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) applies whole-record substantial-evidence review when both parties present evidence and bars substitution of judicial judgment for supported agency findings.

In Re Pickens · filed 2006-05-04(c)(ii)(E)

When both parties present evidence, as in the instant case, we apply the substantial evidence test. ... When reviewing findings of fact under the substantial evidence test, "we examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings. If the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must uphold the findings on appeal. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions. It is more than a scintilla of evidence."

When both parties present evidence, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires the agency's factual decision to be reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard.

Loomer v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2004-04-30(c)(ii)(E)

Because Mrs. Loomer and the Division both presented evidence, in the form of witnesses or exhibits, we will review the Commission’s decision under the substantial evidence standard.

When both parties present evidence, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) calls for review under the substantial-evidence standard.

Kunkle v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2005-04-14(c)(ii)(E)

Because Mr. Kunkle and the Division both presented evidence, we will review the decision under the substantial evidence standard.

When both parties present evidence, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires whole-record review for evidence a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support the agency’s findings.

Peterson v. Wyoming Department of Transportation, Drivers' License Division · filed 2007-05-30(c)(ii)(E)

Where both parties present evidence at an administrative hearing, we review the entire record to determine if the agency findings are supported by substantial evidence. ... Substantial evidence in this context is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) applies whole-record substantial-evidence review when both parties submit evidence and bars substitution of judicial judgment for supported agency facts.

Wright v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2007-06-21(c)(ii)(E)

Judicial review of an agency decision is limited in seope to those matters specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2005), which provides in relevant part: ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. ... Although Wright phrases her issue in terms of an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, the appropriate standard of review in appeals where both parties to a contested case submitted evidence, as in this case, is the substantial evidence test.

When both parties submit evidence at an administrative hearing, section 16-3-114 requires substantial-evidence review of the entire record regardless of which party appeals.

Elk Horn Ranch, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2007-10-08(c)(ii)(E)

In appeals where both parties submit evidence at the administrative hearing, Newman mandates that appellate review be limited to application of the substantial evidence test. This is true regardless of which party appeals from the agency decision. In addition, this court is required to review the entire record in making its ultimate determination on appeal.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), when both parties present evidence, the court reviews the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the agency's findings.

Batten v. Wyoming Department of Transportation Drivers' License Division · filed 2007-11-02(c)(ii)(E)

Where both parties present evidence at an administrative hearing, we review the entire record to determine if the agency findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires whole-record substantial-evidence review when both parties submit evidence and bars a court from substituting its judgment for supported agency findings.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Ludwig v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2004-03-30(c)(ii)(E)

The parameters for judicial review of an agency action are found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114. ... That case held that “the substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review ... when factual findings are involved and both parties submit evidence.” ... In reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency’s findings. If the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must uphold the findings on appeal. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s conclusions. It is more than a scintilla of evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires whole-record substantial-evidence review, and once evidence exceeds a scintilla the possibility of two inconsistent conclusions does not permit a court to substitute its judgment for the agency’s.

State Ex Rel. Wyoming Department of Revenue v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 2003-04-30(c)(ii)(E)

The substantial evidence standard also requires that there be more than a sceintilla of evidence. ... Once the measure of evidence ... has surpassed the scintilla threshold, the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the entire record does not mean that the conclusion drawn by the administrative agency is not supported by substantial evidence. Even where this court, after reviewing the record, arrives at a different conclusion, the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency's as long as the agency's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. ... Therefore, when this court is charged with reviewing an agency's decision for substantial evidence pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c0)@i)(E), ... [that duty requires a review of the entire record to determine if there is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's decision.

When both parties submit evidence, subsection (c)(ii)(E) requires whole-record substantial-evidence review and permits judicial substitution of judgment only when the agency decision contradicts the overwhelming weight of the record.

Rodriguez v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2022-12-30(c)(ii)(E)

When both parties submit evidence, we apply the substantial evidence test to factual findings, which requires this Court to examine the entire record for “relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s conclusions.” ... This Court will not substitute the agency’s judgment with its own unless the agency’s decision is “contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence on record.”

Under section 16-3-114(c), agency fact findings receive considerable deference and are disturbed only when contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

BP America Production Co. v. Department of Revenue · filed 2005-05-31(c)(ii)(A), (C)

Considerable deference is accorded to the findings of fact of the agency, and this Court does not disturb them unless they are contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), courts defer to agency fact findings unless they are contrary to the great weight of the evidence and do not substitute their judgment for a decision supported by substantial evidence.

BUEHNER BLOCK COMPANY, INC. v. Wyoming Dept. of Revenue · filed 2006-07-27(c)(ii)(E)

We give deference to the agency’s findings of fact, and do not disturb them unless they are contrary to the great weight of the evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires review of the entire record for relevant evidence a reasonable mind could accept, and a court reaches a different factual conclusion only when the agency’s conclusion is clearly contrary to the evidence’s weight.

Sinclair Oil Corp. v. PSC · filed 2003-02-21(c)(ii)(E)

Therefore, when this court is charged with reviewing an agency’s decision for substantial evidence pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), ... [t]hat duty requires a review of the entire record to determine if there is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s decision. ... A court will reach a different conclusion based on the evidence only in those situations where the agency’s conclusion is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires substantial-evidence review of contested-case facts and forbids a court from substituting its judgment when the agency’s decision is reasonably supported.

Bonsell v. State Ex Rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Divison · filed 2006-09-14(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Judicial review of agency decisions is limited to those considerations specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2005), which provides in pertinent part: ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. ... The substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from contested case proceedings when factual findings are involved and both parties submit evidence. ... Considering his actual post-injury wage, together with his physical limitations, the hearing examiner’s determination Mr. Bonsell’s earning capacity was reduced because of his work-related injury is supported by substantial evidence and is not, in any other fashion, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.

The plain language of section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires reversal of an agency finding or action that lacks substantial-evidence support.

Palmer v. STATE EX REL. WYO. WORKERS'COMP. · filed 2008-09-08(c)(ii)(E)

We recently reiterated that under "the plain language of the statute, reversal of an agency finding or action is required if it is `not supported by substantial evidence.'"

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires affirmance of agency fact findings supported by substantial evidence and requires that unsupported findings be set aside.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Palmer v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2008-09-08(c)(ii)(E)

Accordingly, we will affirm the hearing examiner's findings if they are supported by substantial evidence, and set them aside if they are not. ... The hearing examiner's conclusion that Ms. Palmer should be denied benefits for this ancillary treatment is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and must be reversed.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires affirmance of agency rulings supported by substantial evidence and reversal of rulings that lack such support.

Williams Production RMT Co. v. Wyoming Department of Revenue · filed 2008-12-31(c)(ii)(E)

We review these issues to determine whether substantial evidence supported the Boards rulings. ... The Board's ruling upholding the DOR's calculations of the allowable deductions was supported by substantial evidence. The Board's ruling disallowing an on-lease fuel exemption was not supported by substantial evidence.

Under subsection (c)(ii)(E), an agency may accept part of a witness's opinion and reject another part when it supplies a rational, record-based reason for the distinction.

Nagel v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2024-02-01(c)(ii)(E)

The OAH, as the trier of fact, was free to accept Dr. Scott’s opinions that Mr. Nagel was intoxicated at the time of his injury and his intoxication was a substantial factor causing his injury while rejecting Dr. Scott’s opinions concerning Mr. Nagel’s estimated BAC at the time of the injury and the number of drinks he likely consumed. It also had a rational basis for doing so. The former opinions were based on Mr. Nagel’s known BAC while the latter were based on a timing error.

When an agency states or applies the wrong law, section 16-3-114 permits no deference to its ultimate factual finding and requires the court to examine the entire record for substantial evidentiary support.

Wyoming Department of Revenue v. Pacificorp and Merit Energy Company, Llc · filed 2025-12-02(c)(ii)(A), (E)

We do not defer to the agency’s ultimate factual finding if there is an error in either stating or applying the law. ... On review, we must “examine the entire record” to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s findings.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii) provides one evidentiary review standard—substantial evidence—for every evidentiary ruling, including when the burdened party loses; in that event the court asks whether rejection of the evidence is contrary to the record’s overwhelming weight.

Bush v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'S&C DIV. · filed 2008-10-07(c)(ii)(E)

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii) provides only one evidentiary standard of review. Under the plain language of the statute, reversal of an agency finding or action is required if it is "not supported by substantial evidence." ... Thus, in the interests of simplifying the process of identifying the correct standard of review and bringing our approach closer to the original use of the two standards, we hold that henceforth the substantial evidence standard will be applied any time we review an evidentiary ruling. ... If the hearing examiner determines that the burdened party failed to meet his burden of proof, we will decide whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency's decision to reject the evidence offered by the burdened party by considering whether that conclusion was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record as a whole.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires de novo correction of agency legal errors and applies substantial-evidence review to every evidentiary ruling, using whole-record reasonable-mind review when the burdened party prevails and overwhelming-weight review when it loses.

Wyoming Department of Employment v. Jolley, Castillo, Drennon, Ltd. · filed 2010-04-22(c)

Our review of an administrative agency's action is governed by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, which provides in pertinent part that the reviewing court shall: ... Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009). ... Questions of law are reviewed de novo. ... Thus, in the interests of simplifying the process of identifying the correct standard of review and bringing our approach closer to the original use of the two standards, we hold that henceforth the substantial evidence standard will be applied any time we review an evidentia-ry ruling. When the burdened party prevailed before the agency, we will determine if substantial evidence exists to support the finding for that party by considering whether there is relevant evidence in the entire record which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions. If the hearing examiner determines that the burdened party failed to meet his burden of proof, we will decide whether there is substantial evidence to support the ageney's decision to reject the evidence offered by the burdened party by considering whether that conclusion was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record as a whole.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires whole-record substantial-evidence review of agency facts and asks whether the agency reasonably could reach its result, while legal questions are reviewed separately.

Kennedy Oil v. Department of Revenue · filed 2008-12-31(c)

Our review of administrative agency action is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114 (LexisNexis 2007), which provides in pertinent part: ... We review factual determinations for substantial evidence, meaning we consider whether there is relevant evidence in the entire record which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s conclusions. ... Importantly, our review of any particular decision turns not on whether we agree with the outcome, but on whether the agency could reasonably conclude as it did based upon all of the evidence presented.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires agency fact findings to be reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard.

Middlemass v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2011-08-11(c)(ii)(E)

In accordance with § 16-3-114(c), we review the agency's findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires whole-record review of agency fact findings and prohibits substituting judicial judgment when relevant evidence a reasonable mind could accept supports the findings.

Espinoza v. State ex rel. Wyoming Department of Transportation · filed 2012-07-25(c)(ii)(E)

we examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings. If the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must uphold the findings on appeal. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the ageney's conclusions.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), rejection of a burdened party's evidence is sustainable when the agency explains its credibility or record-based reasons and the result is not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the whole record.

Kenyon v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2011-02-02(c)(ii)(E)

If, in the course of its decision making process, the agency disregards certain evidence and explains its reasons for doing so based upon determinations of credibility or other factors contained in the record, its decision will be sustainable under the substantial evidence test.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires whole-record substantial-evidence review of evidentiary issues and bars judicial reweighing when the agency’s findings are reasonably supported.

Hwang v. State, Department of Transportation · filed 2011-02-09(c)(ii)(E)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c). Evidentiary issues are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. ... In reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings. If the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the ageney and must uphold the findings on appeal.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires whole-record substantial-evidence review and forbids judicial substitution of judgment for supported agency findings.

Tiernan v. State, Department of Transportation · filed 2011-10-14(c)(ii)(E)

Our review of an administrative agency's action is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)@ii) (LexisNex-is 2011), which provides that the reviewing court shall: ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. ... [We examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings. If the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the ageney and must uphold the findings on appeal.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires examination of the entire record and prohibits substituting judicial judgment when relevant evidence a reasonable mind could accept supports agency findings.

Vogt v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel., Department of Transportation · filed 2013-10-09(c)(ii)(E)

Our review of an administrative agency’s action is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii) (LexisNexis 2011), which provides that the reviewing court shall: ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. ... In reviewing an agency’s factual findings: [W]e examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency’s findings. If the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must uphold the findings on appeal.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) applies substantial-evidence review to every evidentiary ruling and reviews a burdened party’s failure of proof against the overwhelming weight of the whole record.

In RE McCALL-PRESSE · filed 2011-02-25(c)(ii)(E)

Our review of agency action is governed by W.R.A.P. 12.09(a) and the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act, found at Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009). ... Thus, in the interests of simplifying the process of identifying the correct standard of review and bringing our approach closer to the original use of the two standards, we hold that henceforth the substantial evidence standard will be applied any time we review an evidentiary ruling. ... If the hearing examiner determines that the burdened party failed to meet his burden of proof, we will decide whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency's decision to reject the evidence offered by the burdened party by considering whether that conclusion was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record as a whole.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) reviews an agency evidentiary ruling under the substantial-evidence standard and tests rejection of a burdened party's proof against the overwhelming weight of the entire record.

In Re Matter of Worker's Compensation Claim of Watkins v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Medical Commission · filed 2011-03-21(c)(ii)(E)

An evidentiary ruling, such as that presented here, is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard: If the hearing examiner determines that the burdened party failed to meet his burden of proof, we will decide whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency's decision to reject the evidence offered by the burdened party by considering whether that conclusion was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record as a whole.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E)’s substantial-evidence standard applies whenever a court reviews an agency evidentiary ruling.

Romsa v. State ex rel. Wyoming Department of Transportation · filed 2012-11-20(c)(ii)(E)

The "substantial evidence standard will be applied any time we review an evidentiary ruling."

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) subjects agency fact findings made after a contested-case hearing to substantial-evidence review.

Walters v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Department of Transportation · filed 2013-05-13(c)(ii)(E)

We review an agency’s findings of fact following a contested case hearing for substantial evidence.

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) requires agency fact findings to be reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard.

Wadsworth v. Board of Trustees of Lincoln County School District Number Two · filed 2014-01-16(c)(ii)(E)

Under this statute, we review an agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard.

Subsection (c) requires review of the entire record to decide whether substantial evidence supports an agency’s findings.

McCallie v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Transportation · filed 2014-02-04(c)

Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009), “we review the entire record to determine if the agency findings are supported by substantial evidence.”

Subsection (c) subjects an administrative agency’s fact findings to substantial-evidence review.

Deana v. Landwehr, a/k/a Deana Streubing v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division · filed 2014-02-21(c)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c). We review an administrative agency’s findings of fact pursuant to the substantial evidence test.

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) requires substantial-evidence review of an agency’s fact findings.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of Don Birch v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Co · filed 2014-02-27(c)(ii)(E)

In accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) (LexisNexis 2013), we review an agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard.

Subsection (c) requires courts to review agency fact findings under the substantial-evidence standard.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim Of: Bennie Johnson v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel., Wyoming Workers' Safet · filed 2014-03-05(c)

In accordance with § 16-3-114(c), we review the agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard.

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) directs courts to review agency fact findings for substantial evidence.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim Of: Rick D. Bodily v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel., Wyoming Workers' Safet · filed 2014-03-13(c)(ii)(E)

In keeping with the APA’s statutory framework, our review is as follows: We review an administrative agency’s findings of fact pursuant to the substantial evidence test.

Subsection (c) requires review of agency fact findings under the substantial-evidence standard.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Richard J. Delacastro v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety · filed 2014-03-21(c)

Under § 16-3-114(c), we review the agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard.

Subsection (c) requires review of agency fact findings under the substantial-evidence standard.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Delacastro v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2014-03-21(c)

Under § 16-3-114(c), we review the agency's findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard.

Subsection (c) requires substantial-evidence review of agency fact findings.

Carson v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division · filed 2014-03-31(c)

In accordance with § 16-3-114(c), we review the agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard.

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) requires examination of the entire record for substantial evidence supporting an agency’s fact findings.

Dubbelde v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel., Department of Transportation · filed 2014-05-15(c)(ii)(E)

In reviewing an agency’s factual findings: [W]e examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency’s findings.

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) subjects agency evidentiary rulings to substantial-evidence review.

Seherr-Thoss v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners · filed 2014-06-25(c)(ii)(E)

We apply the substantial evidence standard whenever we review an evidentiary ruling.

Under section 16-3-114(c), agency fact findings receive substantial-evidence review and are sustained when the record reveals a rational premise for them.

Doggett v. Wyoming Department of Workforce Services · filed 2014-09-24(c)

In accordance with § 16-3-114(c) we review the agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. ... Findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence when we can discern a rational premise for those findings from the evidence preserved in the record.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires substantial-evidence review of agency fact findings, with deference to credibility determinations unless they are clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Zowada v. Mullinax Concrete Service Co. · filed 2014-09-24(c)(ii)(E)

We review an agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) (LexisNexis 2013). We have defined substantial evidence as relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and have held that an agency’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence if we can discern a rational premise for those findings from evidence in the record. In making that determination, we defer to the agency’s (or the hearing examiner’s) determination of witness credibility unless it is clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires substantial-evidence review of agency fact findings, with deference to credibility determinations unless they are clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Merlin H. Zowada and Lori Zowada · filed 2014-09-24(c)(ii)(E)

We review an agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) (LexisNexis 2013). We have defined substantial evidence as relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and have held that an agency’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence if we can discern a rational premise for those findings from evidence in the record. In making that determination, we defer to the agency’s (or the hearing examiner’s) determination of witness credibility unless it is clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Under section 16-3-114(c), when both parties present evidence the reviewing court examines the entire record to determine whether agency findings have substantial-evidence support.

State Ex Rel. Wyoming Department of Transportation v. Icenhower · filed 2014-12-11(c)

Where both parties present evidence at an administrative hearing, we review the entire record to determine if the agency findings are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Phrased another way, findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence if, from the evidence preserved in the record, we can conclude a reasonable mind might accept the evidence as adequate to support the agency findings.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E)’s substantial-evidence standard applies to an agency’s evidentiary determinations after a contested-case hearing.

Application for Establishment of Private Road by Price Family Trust v. Hutchinson · filed 2014-12-16(c)(ii)(E)

The substantial evidence standard of review applies to the agency’s evidentiary determinations after a contested case hearing.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires whole-record substantial-evidence review when both parties present evidence and de novo review of agency legal conclusions.

Sabatka v. Board of Trustees · filed 2015-01-12(c)

Where both parties present evidence at an administrative hearing, we review the entire record to determine if the agency findings are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Phrased another way, findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence if, from the evidence preserved in the record, we can conclude a reasonable mind might accept the evidence as adequate to support the agency findings. We review the agency’s conclusions of law de novo.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), agency fact findings receive substantial-evidence review and are supported when the record discloses a rational premise for them.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Newman v. State Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Worker's Safety & Compensation Div · filed 2015-01-28(c)(ii)(E)

Pursuant to this statute, we review an administrative agency’s findings of fact using the substantial evidence test. Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶ 22, 188 P.3d 554, 561 (Wyo. 2008). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s decision. Id., ¶ 11, 188 P.3d at 558. Findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence if, from the evidence in the record, this Court can discern a rational premise for the agency’s findings.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) subjects agency factual determinations to substantial-evidence review, which asks whether relevant evidence could adequately support the conclusion.

Hildebrant v. State Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2015-03-24(c)(ii)(E)

Mr. Hildebrant argues that the hearing examiner erred in upholding the Division’s denial of the preauthorization request. We review such factual determinations under our substantial evidence standard. ... Substantial evidence “means relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”

Under section 16-3-114(c), agency fact findings receive substantial-evidence review and are supported when the record reveals a rational premise for them.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Michael D. Hurt v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Department of Workforce Services · filed 2015-08-14(c)

In accordance with § 16-3-114(c), we review the agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. ... “Findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence if, from the evidence preserved in the record, we can discern a rational premise for those findings.”

Under subsection (c)(ii)(E), agency fact findings receive substantial-evidence review and stand when the preserved record supplies a rational premise for them.

State ex rel. Department of Workforce Services v. Kinneman · filed 2016-08-10(c)(ii)(E)

We examine the agency's findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. ... Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) does not permit a court to displace an agency's substantially supported choice merely because the record could support a different conclusion.

Patrick J. Whaley and Mary L. Whaley v. Flitner Limited Partnership, a Wyoming Limited Partnership · filed 2017-05-17(c)(ii)(E)

The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the entire record does not mean that the conclusion drawn by the administrative agency is not supported by substantial evidence. Even where this court, after reviewing the record, arrives at a different conclusion, the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency’s as long as the agency’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) requires whole-record review and forbids substituting judicial judgment when substantial evidence supports the agency decision.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Howe v. State ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2017-09-18(c)(ii)(E)

We apply a substantial evidence standard to review the agency’s findings of fact by reviewing the entire record. ... If the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must uphold the decision on appeal.

When the burdened party prevailed before the agency, subsection (c)(ii)(E) asks whether the entire record contains relevant evidence a reasonable mind could accept for that party's finding.

State v. Lysne (In re Lysne) · filed 2018-09-11(c)(ii)(E)

When the burdened party prevailed before the agency, we will determine if substantial evidence exists to support the finding for that party by considering whether there is relevant evidence in the entire record which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusion.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires setting aside arbitrary or unsupported agency findings, plenary correction of legal errors, and affirmance of factual findings when the record reveals a rational premise supported by more than a scintilla of evidence.

Lincoln County Board of Commissioners v. Cook · filed 2002-02-08(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Our review is limited to a determination of the factors specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2001). The reviewing court shall: ... (i) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: ... (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record ... of an agency hearing provided by statute. ... Findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence if, from the evidence preserved in the record, the reviewing court can discern a rational premise for those findings.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) sustains a burdened party’s favorable agency finding when the entire record supplies a rational premise and the agency reasonably explains any evidence it disregards.

Herrera v. WORKERS'SAFETY & COMP. DIV. · filed 2010-07-28(c)(ii)(E)

Our review is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009), which states: ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. ... When the burdened party prevailed before the agency, we determine if substantial evidence exists to support the agency's decision by considering whether there is relevant evidence in the entire record which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's ruling. ... Findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence if, from the evidence preserved in the record, we can discern a rational premise for those findings.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) sustains agency findings when relevant evidence supplies a rational premise a reasonable mind could accept and permits deference to supported credibility determinations.

Kenyon v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'COMP. DIV. · filed 2011-02-02(c)(ii)(E)

Our review is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009): ... In accordance with § 16-3-114(c), we review the agency's findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. ... Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." ... "Findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence if, from the evidence preserved in the record, we can discern a rational premise for those findings."

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), an agency fact finding has substantial-evidence support when the preserved record reveals a rational premise for it.

Mahaffey v. STATE EX REL. WYOMING WORKERS'SAFETY & COMPESATION DIV. · filed 2011-03-11(c)(ii)(E)

Findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence if, from the evidence preserved in the record, we can discern a rational premise for those findings.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) reviews agency facts for substantial evidence, which exists when relevant record evidence supplies a rational premise that a reasonable mind could accept.

Green v. State ex rel. Department of Workforce Services · filed 2013-07-09(c)(ii)(E)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii) (LexisNexis 2013). ... Under this statute, we review an agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. ... Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. ... ‘Findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence if, from the evidence preserved in the record, we can discern a rational premise for those findings.’

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) defines substantial evidence as relevant evidence a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support an agency conclusion.

Davenport v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2012-01-12(c)(ii)(E)

Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."