Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114

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

State v. Laramie County · filed 2013-06-05(c)(ii)(E)

In accordance with § 16-3-1l14(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.

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) reviews agency fact findings for evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to rationally support the agency’s conclusion.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim Of: Shirlene Hathaway v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safe · filed 2014-01-24(c)(ii)(E)

Findings of fact by an agency are reviewed for substantial evidence, meaning “relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to rationally support the hearing examiner’s conclusion.”

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), substantial evidence is evidence a reasonable mind could accept in support of an agency decision, and fact findings stand when the record reveals a rational premise for them.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of: Mary Leib v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Workforce Ser · filed 2016-05-20(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.

Agency fact findings satisfy subsection (c)(ii)(E) when relevant record evidence supplies a rational premise adequate to support the findings.

Morris v. State ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2017-10-05(c)(ii)(E)

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.”

Subsection (c)(ii)(E) requires deference to an agency’s findings when relevant evidence could reasonably support the agency’s conclusion.

Helmut J. Mueller Ltd. P'ship v. Treanor · filed 2018-11-29(c)(ii)(E)

We defer to an agency's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence, which is "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind can accept as adequate to support an agency's conclusion."

The only evidentiary review standard in section 16-3-114(c)(ii) is substantial evidence, which asks whether relevant evidence could adequately support the agency’s conclusion.

Genner v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2022-09-29(c)(ii)

In accordance with § 16-3-114(c)(ii), we review the agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. Dale, ¶ 21, 188 P.3d at 561 (the only evidentiary standard of review in § 16-3-114(c)(ii) is the substantial evidence standard). “Substantial evidence means ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’”

Under subsection (c)(ii)(E), a factual finding stands when the preserved record supplies a rational premise, and agency fact and credibility determinations receive deference unless clearly contrary to the overwhelming record.

Moncecchi v. Mckellar, Tiedeken & Scoggin, LLC · filed 2026-04-30(c)(ii)(E)

A finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence if, from the evidence preserved in the record, we can discern a rational premise for it. ... Because the agency “is the trier of fact and has the duty to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses,” we give deference to its factual findings unless they are “clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence on record.”

Section 16-3-114(c) requires substantial-evidence review of agency fact findings, affirmance of legal conclusions that accord with law, and correction when the agency fails to invoke or properly apply the correct legal rule.

Scott v. McTiernan · filed 1999-03-22(c)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Michie 1997) governs judicial review of administrative decisions. ... In reviewing an agency’s findings of fact, we determine whether substantial evidence supports the findings. ... “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s conclusions.” ... We affirm an agency’s conclusions of law when they are in accordance with law. ... When an agency has not invoked and properly applied the correct rule of law, we correct the agency’s errors.

Section 16-3-114(c) calls for substantial-evidence review of agency fact findings, but a court does not defer when the agency applies the wrong legal rule and must correct the agency’s legal errors.

Hepp v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 1999-03-25(c)

Judicial review of an agency’s action is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Michie 1997). ... We review an administrative agency’s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. ... If ... an ... agency’s action “is supported by substantial evidence, its decision should be reversed only for errors of law. If the agency did not apply the correct rule of law, or applied it incorrectly, this Court does not defer to the agency’s conclusion. The agency’s errors of law are corrected by this Court.”

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) and (E), agency fact findings receive deference only when supported by substantial evidence, while legal conclusions receive no special deference and must accord with law.

Apodaca v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 1999-04-14(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Unlike its findings of fact, however, an administrative agency’s conclusions of law are afforded no special deference and will be affirmed only if truly in accord with the law. ... the hearing examiner’s award of benefits is not supported by substantial evidence and is, thus, not in accordance with the law.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) and (E) limits review to whether agency action is arbitrary or contrary to law and whether factual findings lack substantial evidence; supported factual findings receive deference, but legal conclusions do not.

State Ex Rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Division v. Barker · filed 1999-04-29(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Our review is limited to a determination of the matters specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Michie 1997), which mandates 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. ... We afford respect and deference to a hearing examiner’s findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. ... “Substantial evidence” is a term of art, best described as relevant evidence that a reasonable mind can accept as adequate to support an agency’s conclusion.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires substantial-evidence review of agency fact findings and correction of agency legal errors when the agency does not invoke and properly apply the correct rule of law.

Ebzery v. City of Sheridan · filed 1999-06-25(c)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(Michie 1997) governs judicial review of administrative actions. ... In reviewing an agency’s findings of fact, we determine whether substantial evidence supports the findings. “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s conclusions.” We affirm an agency’s conclusions of law when they are in accordance with law. When an agency has not invoked and properly applied the correct rule of law, we correct the agency’s errors.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires substantial-evidence review of agency fact findings and correction when an agency uses the wrong legal rule or misapplies the correct one.

US West Communications, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Commission · filed 1999-10-22(c)

Judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to a determination of the matters specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999). ... In reviewing an agency’s findings of fact, we determine whether substantial evidence supports the findings. ... Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reason- ■ able mind may accept in support of the agency’s conclusions. ... We affirm an agency’s conclusions if the agency properly applied its findings of fact to the correct rule of law. ... If, however, the agency applied its findings to the wrong rule of law or if it improperly applied its findings to the correct rule of law, we correct the agency’s errors.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires whole-record review and setting aside agency action that is arbitrary, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence, while agency legal conclusions receive no deference.

In Re Claim of Prasad · filed 2000-08-23(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Judicial review of agency action is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999): 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. 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. ... Conclusions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. We do not afford any deference to the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires setting aside arbitrary or unsupported agency action, plenary review of legal questions without agency deference, and deferential review of fact findings supported by substantial evidence.

Logue v. STATE WORKER'S SAFETY & COMP. DIV. · filed 2002-04-16(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: 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). ... We affirm an administrative agency's conclusions of law only if they are in accord with the law. We do not afford any deference to the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires setting aside agency action that is arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence, affords no deference to agency legal determinations, and requires examination of the entire record for factual support.

Griffin v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Department of Transportation · filed 2002-05-28(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: ... (#) 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. ... We do not afford any deference to the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law. ... In reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an ageney's findings.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires the reviewing court to decide relevant legal questions, interpret statutes, and correct incorrect agency conclusions of law.

In Re Wright · filed 1999-05-04(c)

The relevant portion of the statute states: (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.... The reviewing court shall: (i) Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (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; (B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; .... ... This Court affirms an agency's conclusions of law if correct; if the agency's conclusions of law are incorrect, this Court must correct them.

Section 16-3-114(c) treats statutory interpretation as a legal question and requires courts to affirm agency legal conclusions that accord with law and correct those that do not.

Wyoming Department of Transportation v. Haglund · filed 1999-06-09(c)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Michie 1997) governs judicial review of administrative decisions. ... The issues presented in this case require us to interpret various statutes. Statutory interpretation is a question of law. ... We affirm an agency’s con clusions of law when they are in accordance with the law.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires courts to affirm agency legal conclusions that accord with law and to correct an agency’s failure to invoke or properly apply the correct rule of law.

Petroleum Inc. v. State Ex Rel. State Board of Equalization · filed 1999-07-16(c)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999) governs judicial review of administrative decisions. ... We affirm an agency's conclusions of law when they are in accordance with the law. ... When an agency has not invoked and properly applied the correct rule of law, we correct the agency's errors.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) requires a court to set aside arbitrary, capricious, abusive, or otherwise unlawful agency action and affords no deference to agency legal conclusions.

Felix v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 1999-07-27(c)(ii)(A)

W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) limits our review to matters specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999), which states, in relevant 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[.] ... We give no deference to the hearing examiner’s conclusions of law.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) requires unlawful agency action to be set aside as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law, while correct agency conclusions of law are affirmed.

STATE EX REL. WKRS'SAFETY DIV. v. Jackson · filed 1999-12-21(c)(ii)(A)

Pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09, our review of the hearing examiner's decision is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) (Lexis 1999) which requires a reviewing court to "[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[.]" The issue on appeal presents a question of law. If the hearing examiner's conclusions of law are correct, its decision will be affirmed.

Section 16-3-114(c) treats statutory interpretation as a legal question, requires affirmance of agency legal conclusions that accord with law, and requires courts to correct use or application of an incorrect legal rule.

State v. Bannon Energy Corp. · filed 2000-03-23(c)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999) governs judicial review of administrative decisions. ... The issue presented in this case requires us to interpret several Wyoming statutes which pertained to the imposition and collection of sales taxes. Statutory interpretation is a question of law. ... We affirm an agency’s conclusions of law when they are in accordance with the law. ... When an agency has not invoked and properly applied the correct rule of law, we correct the agency’s errors.

Under section 16-3-114(c), statutory interpretation is a legal question; agency legal conclusions are affirmed when lawful, but reviewing courts correct failures to invoke and properly apply the correct rule.

Petra Energy, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · filed 2000-06-12(c)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999) governs judicial review of administrative decisions. ... Statutory interpretation is a question of law. ... This Court affirms an agency's conclusions of law when they are in accordance with the law. ... When an agency has not invoked and properly applied the correct rule of law, we correct the agency's errors.

Under section 16-3-114(c), courts do not substitute their judgment for agency findings supported by substantial evidence, affirm lawful agency legal conclusions, and correct failures to invoke or properly apply the controlling law.

Wyodak Resources Development Corp. v. State Board of Equalization · filed 2000-08-14(c)

If substantial evidence supports an agency's findings, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency. ... If the agency's conclusions of law are in accordance with the law, this Court will affirm them. ... When an agency has not invoked or properly applied the correct rule of law, we will correct the error.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii), supported agency fact findings and undisputed facts are accepted, legal conclusions receive de novo review, and the challenger bears the burden of showing that the agency misapplied the law.

Estate of Heckert v. State Board of Equalization · filed 2000-12-19(c)(ii)

We must affirm an agency's findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence, U S West Communications, Inc., 989 P.2d at 618, and facts that are not disputed are treated as properly supported. We apply de novo review to an agency's conclusions of law, and affirm them only if the agency correctly applied the appropriate rule -of law to the facts. ... The burden of persuasion that the agency failed to apply the law correctly is assigned to the party challenging the ruling, in this case, the Estate.

Section 16-3-114(c) provides plenary review of statutory interpretation and application, affirming agency legal conclusions only when lawful and otherwise correcting the agency without deference.

In Re Collicott · filed 2001-04-04(c)

The interpretation and correct application of the provisions of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act are a question of law over which our review authority is plenary. ... Conclusions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. ... We do not afford any deference to the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) and (E), agency legal conclusions receive plenary review without deference, while agency fact findings are reviewed on the entire record and upheld when supported by substantial evidence.

Clark v. STATE EX REL. WORK. SAF. AND COMP. DIV. · filed 2001-12-21(c)(ii)(A), (E)

We affirm an administrative agency's conclusions of law only if they are in accord with the law. We do not afford any deference to the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law. ... 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.

Under section 16-3-114(c), statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo, correct agency legal conclusions are affirmed, and an agency's failure to invoke and apply the correct legal rule is corrected on review.

Powder River Coal Co. v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization · filed 2002-01-17(c)

Judicial review of administrative decisions is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2001). ... Statutory interpretation is a question of law which we review de novo. ... However, when the agency has failed to properly invoke and apply the correct rule of law, we correct the agency's error.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) requires the reviewing court to decide presented legal questions and set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law, without deferring to agency legal conclusions.

Swift v. SUBLETTE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS · filed 2002-02-25(c)(ii)(A)

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.... ... We give no deference to the agency's conclusions of law, and if the correct rule of law has not been invoked and correctly applied, then we will rectify the agency's errors.

Under section 16-3-114(c), courts review the entire record for substantial evidence without substituting their judgment for supported agency fact findings, but review agency legal conclusions without deference and correct legal errors.

In Re Franks · filed 2002-05-21(c)(ii)(A)

When we review findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine if substantial evidence supports the agency's findings. ... If the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency. ... An administrative agency's conclusions of law are affirmed only if this court determines that they are in accord with the law. ... We do not defer to the agency's determination regarding conclusions of law, and we will correct any error the agency made in either interpreting or applying the law.

Section 16-3-114(c) gives courts plenary review of agency statutory interpretations and applications, with no deference to legal conclusions that do not accord with law.

State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division v. Garl · filed 2001-07-06(c)

Our judicial review is limited to those considerations specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999) which provides in pertinent part: ... The interpretation and correct application of the provisions of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act are questions of law over which our review authority is plenary. ... Conclusions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. ... We do not afford any deference to the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii) mandates setting aside agency action that is arbitrary or contrary to law, exceeds statutory authority, or fails to observe required procedure, and statutory-interpretation questions under those grounds are reviewed de novo.

In Re Pohl · filed 1999-05-25(c)(ii)(A), (C), (D)

Our review is limited to a determination of the matters specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Michie 1997), which mandates 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; * * * (C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right; * * * (D) Without observance of procedure required by law[.] This appeal presents two questions of statutory interpretation, questions of law. We review questions of law de novo.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) and (E), an agency decision is arbitrary and capricious if an essential finding lacks substantial evidence, and a decision that fails to invoke and apply the law supporting a claimant’s theory is not in accordance with law.

Pino v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2000-02-17(c)(ii)(A), (E)

The failure of any essential finding to be supported by substantial evidence results in an arbitrary and capricious decision and must be reversed. ... We conclude that the hearing examiner failed to recognize that the issue before the agency was one of a second subsequent injury rather than simply one of proximate causation. ... The hearing examiner should have invoked and applied the rule relied upon in the cited cases. Under the circumstances, the failure to do so constitutes a decision “not in accordance with law.”

Section 16-3-114(c) permits interference with agency fact findings only when they are clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, while agency legal conclusions receive no deference.

Clark v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 1998-12-07(c)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Michie 1997) governs our review of an agency action. ... We do not inter ... fere with an agency’s findings of fact unless they are clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. ... We do not, however, defer to the hearing examiner’s conclusions of law.

Under section 16-3-114(c), mixed determinations or ultimate facts are reviewed by separating their factual and legal components, correcting legal error, and deferring to the ultimate finding only if the agency correctly stated and applied the law.

Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Wyoming Department of Revenue · filed 2001-04-04(c)

Instead, we separate the factual elements from the legal elements to determine whether the correct rule of law has been correctly applied to the facts and defer to the agency's ultimate factual finding only if there is no error in either stating or applying the law. ... The controversy in the case at bar involves the proper application of appraisal methods to the facts, which is an issue of ultimate fact and requires de novo review.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) and (E) requires reversal when an agency decision is unsupported by substantial evidence and is inconsistent with governing law.

State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division v. Henriksen · filed 2001-04-24(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the hearing examiner's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence and was not in accordance with our legal conclusion that increased incapacity can . result when an employee follows the order of her medical provider not to work for a reasonable time in order to promote recovery from an injury.

Under section 16-3-114(c), reviewing courts examine the entire record for substantial evidence without substituting their judgment on facts, while reviewing agency legal conclusions without deference.

Franks v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2002-05-21(c)

When we review findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine if substantial evidence supports the agency's findings. ... If the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency. ... We do not defer to the agency's determination regarding conclusions of law, and we will correct any error the agency made in either interpreting or applying the law. ... We hold that substantial evidence supported the hearing examiner's decision.

Under section 16-3-114(c), legal questions arising from agency action receive de novo review, and a court corrects the agency when it failed to apply the proper legal rule.

Voss v. Albany County Commissioners · filed 2003-08-14(c)

Questions of law raised in an administrative context are reviewed by this Court de novo. ... When an agency has not applied the correct rule of law, we correct the agency's error.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires de novo review of agency legal conclusions, affirmance when they accord with law, and judicial correction when the agency invokes or applies the wrong legal rule.

RT Communications, Inc. v. Public Service Commission · filed 2003-11-10(c)

Judicial review of administrative decisions is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2001). ... when this court reviews questions of law posed in an administrative context, this court must conduct a de novo review. We affirm an ageney's conclusions of law when they are in accordance with the law. However, when the ageney has failed to properly invoke and apply the correct rule of law, we correct the ageney's error.

Under section 16-3-114(c), courts review agency legal conclusions without deference and correct any error in interpreting or applying the law.

Carabajal v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2005-09-16(c)

The interpretation and correct application of the provisions of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act are questions of law over which our review authority is plenary. Conclusions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. We do not afford any deference to the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the ageney in either interpreting or applying the law.

Section 16-3-114(c) gives plenary review over statutory interpretation and application, affirms agency legal conclusions only when lawful, and requires correction of agency legal error without deference.

Blommel v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF EMP. · filed 2005-10-04(c)

The interpretation and correct application of the provisions of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act are a question of law over which our review authority is plenary. Conclusions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. We do not afford any deference to the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law.

Under section 16-3-114(c), courts do not defer to an agency on legal issues and correct errors in interpreting or applying law.

Alvarez v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2007-08-06(c)

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) directs the reviewing court to decide all relevant legal questions through an independent inquiry without being bound by the district court’s agency-review decision.

Board of County Commissioners for Sublette County v. Exxon Mobil Corp. · filed 2002-10-09(c)

This court is directed to "decide all relevant questions of law." Wyo.Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2001). We are not bound by the decision of the district court, but conduct an independent inquiry into the matter just as if it had proceeded directly to us from the agency.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires de novo review of agency legal conclusions but affirmance of agency valuation findings when supported by substantial evidence.

Airtouch Communications, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · filed 2003-09-12(c)

Judicial review of administrative decisions is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNex-is 2001) ... The threshold issue we must consider is whether the taxpayers were treated correctly by DOR as telephone companies pursuant to § 39-13-102(m)(vi). This is a question of statutory interpretation and hence one of law which we review de novo. ... To the extent SBOE's order rests on conclusions of law, we review it de movo. However, SBOE's findings regarding the value of intangible property claimed by the taxpayers to be exempt must be affirmed if they are supported by substantial evidence. Section 16-3-114(c).

Section 16-3-114 requires whole-record substantial-evidence review of agency fact findings and plenary correction of agency legal errors without deference.

Lloyd v. STATE EX REL. WYOMING WORKERS'SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION · filed 2004-07-16(c)

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.” ... Conclusions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. ... We do not afford any deference to the agency’s determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law.

Section 16-3-114 requires examination of the entire record for substantial evidence supporting agency facts and de novo correction of agency legal errors.

State Ex Rel. Wyoming Department of Revenue v. Hanover Compression, LP · filed 2008-11-21(c)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114 (LexisNexis 2005) governs judicial review of administrative decisions. ... When an appealing party contests an agency's findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine if the agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence. ... If the agency's findings of fact are sup ... ported by substantial evidence, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency and will uphold the factual findings on appeal. ... We review an agency's conclusions of law de novo.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires deference to supported agency facts, review of a burdened party’s failure of proof against the overwhelming record weight, and de novo review of agency legal conclusions.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Straube v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2009-05-20(c)

As in all administrative proceedings, the scope of our review is governed by the factors specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2007), which provides in pertinent part: ... In short, we defer to an agency's findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence. ... We review an agency's finding that the burdened party failed to prove all the elements of his claim, as in this case, to determine "whether that conclusion was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record as a whole." ... As always, we review an agency's conclusions of law de novo.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires deference to reasonable agency facts supported by substantial evidence, overwhelming-weight review of a burdened party’s failure of proof, and de novo review of legal and jurisdictional questions.

Judd v. STATE EX REL. WY. WORKS'SAFETY & COMP., DIV. · filed 2010-06-25(c)

As in all administrative proceedings, the scope of our review is governed by the factors specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009), which provides in pertinent part: ... In short, we defer to an agency's findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence. ... We review an agency's finding that the burdened party failed to prove all the elements of his claim to determine "whether that conclusion was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record as a whole." ... Finally, we review an agency's conclusions of law de novo.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), courts affirm lawful agency legal conclusions but correct an agency's failure to invoke and apply the proper rule of law.

Qwest Corp. v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Department of Revenue · filed 2006-03-22(c)(ii)(A)

However, when the agency has failed to properly invoke and apply the correct rule of law, we correct the agency’s error.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), lawful agency legal conclusions are affirmed, but a reviewing court corrects failure to invoke and properly apply the governing legal rule.

RME Petroleum Co. v. Wyoming Department of Revenue · filed 2007-01-26(c)(ii)(A)

However, when the agency has failed to properly invoke and apply the correct rule of law, we correct the agency's error.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), reviewing courts give no deference to agency legal determinations and correct errors in interpreting or applying the law.

Yother v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2007-12-11(c)(ii)(A)

We do not defer to the sgeney's determi'nation on issues of law; instead, we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law.

Under section 16-3-114(c), an ultimate fact combining law and fact is reviewed by separating its components and deferring only when the agency correctly stated and applied the law.

Reidy v. Stratton Sheep Co. · filed 2006-06-02(c)

When an agency’s determinations involve elements of law and fact, or ultimate facts, we do not give them the same deference we reserve for findings of basic fact. ... Instead, we separate the factual elements from the legal elements to determine whether the appropriate rule of law has been correctly applied to the facts and defer to the agency’s ultimate factual finding only if there is no error in either stating or applying the law.

Under section 16-3-114(c), a reviewing court examines the entire record, does not substitute its judgment for supported agency fact findings, and corrects an agency’s failure to apply the proper law.

Closs v. Schell · filed 2006-07-31(c)

We examine the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the administrative agency’s findings of fact. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the agency when substantial evidence supports its decision. ... We do not, however, defer to an agency’s conclusions of law. If the correct rule of law has not been correctly applied, the agency’s errors are to be corrected.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires review of the entire record, forbids substituting judicial judgment for supported agency fact findings, and permits correction of agency legal error.

Pine Bar Ranch, LLC v. Luther · filed 2007-03-02(c)

We examine the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the administrative agency's findings of fact. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the agency when substantial evidence supports its decision. ... We do not, however, defer to an agency's conclusions of law. If the correct rule of law has not been correctly applied, the ageney's errors are to be corrected.

Under subsection (c)(ii), agency legal conclusions receive de novo review and are affirmed only when they accord with law.

Terry J. Leal and Dustin Kopp v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Divis · filed 2024-08-14(c)(ii)

“We review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo and affirm only if its conclusions are in accordance with the law.”

Section 16-3-114(c) provides de novo review for statutory construction questions arising from agency action.

Jenkins v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2007-03-09(c)

Statutory construction is a question of law, so our standard of review is de novo.

Under section 16-3-114(c), questions of statutory interpretation arising from an administrative decision are legal matters reviewed de novo.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Department of Revenue · filed 2007-03-14(c)

Questions of statutory interpretation are matters of law and are reviewed de novo.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), agency conclusions involving statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo for accordance with law.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. State, Department of Revenue · filed 2009-11-12(c)(ii)(A)

Statutory interpretation presents a question of law which we review de novo.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), agency conclusions involving statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo for accordance with law.

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION v. State · filed 2009-11-12(c)(ii)(A)

Statutory interpretation presents a question of law which we review de novo.

Under section 16-3-114(c), substantial-evidence review of a contested case examines both supporting and conflicting evidence to decide whether the agency reasonably could reach its result, while legal issues receive no deference.

McIntosh v. State ex rel. Wyoming Medical Commission · filed 2007-07-12(c)(ii)(A), (E)

An appellate court does not examine the record only to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the agency's decision, but it also must examine the conflicting evidence to determine if the hearing examiner could have reasonably made its finding and order upon all of the evidence before it. ... 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.

Under section 16-3-114(c), whether untimely filing triggers the statutory presumption of denial is reviewed de novo, while the underlying fact findings receive substantial-evidence review of the whole record.

Horn-Dalton v. State · filed 2009-02-05(c)(ii)(A), (E)

We will review de novo the question of law, whether the OAH correctly applied the statutory presumption of denial for untimely filing.. ... We will determine if the findings of fact underlying that legal conclusion are supported by substantial evidence.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), when no evidentiary dispute exists, a contested-case decision is reviewed to determine whether the agency's legal conclusions accord with law.

Jacobs v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'COMP. DIV. · filed 2009-09-25(c)(ii)(A)

Absent evidentiary dispute, the standard of review for contested case hearings is simply stated as whether an agency's conclusions are in accordance with the law.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires de novo review of agency legal conclusions and substantial-evidence review of evidentiary issues.

Faber v. State, Department of Transportation · filed 2009-11-10(c)

The scope of our review is dictated by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(i) (LexisNex-is 2009), which provides as follows: ... In short, we review the agency's conclusions of law de novo, and we apply the substantial evidence standard to evidentiary issues.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), statutory interpretation and application receive plenary review; agency legal conclusions are affirmed only when lawful and otherwise corrected without deference.

Ball v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'SAFETY DIV. · filed 2010-09-22(c)(ii)(A)

The interpretation and correct application of the provisions of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act are questions of law over which our review authority is plenary. Conclusions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. We do not afford any deference to the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law.

Under section 16-3-114(c), agency legal conclusions receive de novo review without deference, while agency fact findings receive considerable deference and whole-record substantial-evidence review.

Maverick Motorsports Group, LLC v. Department of Revenue · filed 2011-05-03(c)

Questions of law are reviewed de novo, and " '[elonclusions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. We do not afford any deference to the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law.""

Under section 16-3-114(c), courts exercise plenary review over agency legal conclusions, affirming them only when they accord with law and correcting errors of interpretation or application.

Shepherd of the Valley Care Center v. Fulmer · filed 2012-02-02(c)

The interpretation and correct application of the provisions of the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Act are questions of law over which our review authority is plenary. Conclusions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. We do not afford any deference to the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law.

When an agency dismisses a matter on legal grounds, section 16-3-114(c) affords no deference to the agency’s legal conclusions and requires correction if it failed to invoke and apply the correct law.

Altaffer v. Cross · filed 2013-06-28(c)

Here, the Board dismissed the Cross application on legal grounds. We give no deference to a board’s conclusions of law. “If the agency has not invoked and properly applied the correct rule of law, we are obligated to correct the error.”

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii) requires agency action to be set aside on its listed grounds and subjects agency legal conclusions to de novo review and affirmance only when they accord with law.

State of Wyoming ex rel., Department of Family Services v. Kisling · filed 2013-07-24(c)(ii)

Review shall be limited to a determination of the matters specified in Wyo. Stat. 16-3-114(c). ... Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii) (LexisNexis 2011), part of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, provides that the reviewing court shall: ... (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: ... We review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo, and ‘[w]e will affirm an agency’s legal conclusion only if it is in accordance with the law.’

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) subjects agency legal conclusions to de novo review and affirmance only when they accord with law.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of: Anita J. Fieseler v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safe · filed 2013-09-30(c)(ii)(A)

We review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo, and will affirm only if the agency’s conclusions are in accordance with the law. ... Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) (LexisNexis 2013).

Section 16-3-114(c) requires substantial-evidence review of agency facts and de novo review of legal conclusions, with affirmance only when the conclusions accord with law.

Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Wyoming Department of Revenue · filed 2010-08-26(c)

We review an administrative agency's decision following the provisions of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, which provides, in pertinent part, that the reviewing court shall: ... Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009). We affirm an agency's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. ... As always, we review an agency's conclusions of law de novo.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires de novo review and correction of agency legal errors when an administrative appeal presents no evidentiary dispute.

Bowen v. State, Department of Transportation · filed 2011-01-04(c)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009). ... This appeal involves only questions of law. "Absent evidentiary dispute, the standard of review for contested case hearings is simply stated as whether an agency's conclusions are in accordance with the law." ... Questions of law are reviewed de novo, and "[clonelu-sions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. We do not afford any deference to the agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law."

Under section 16-3-114(c), factual findings concerning probable cause receive substantial-evidence review, while the constitutionality of the seizure is reviewed de novo.

Harvey v. State, Department of Transportation · filed 2011-04-25(c)(ii)(E)

We apply the substantial evidence standard of review to the hearing examiner's factual findings concerning whether the trooper had probable cause to initiate the traffic stop, but review the constitutionality of the particular seizure de novo.

Section 16-3-114(c) reviews agency facts for a rational premise supported by substantial evidence and reviews agency legal conclusions de novo for accordance with law.

Michaels v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. · filed 2012-03-06(c)

Our review is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2011): ... [W]e 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." ... "We review an agency's conclusions of law de novo, and will affirm only if the agency's conclusions are in accordance with the law."

Section 16-3-114(c) requires de novo review of whether agency action is contrary to law or exceeds statutory authority, with correction of agency legal error.

Montana-Dakota Utilities, Co. v. Wyoming Public Service Commission · filed 2014-08-19(c)(ii)(A), (C)

We review questions of law de novo. US West Communications v. Wyoming Public Service Comm’n, 992 P.2d 1092, 1094 (Wyo. 1999). “If the agency action is in accordance with law, it is affirmed; if not, it is corrected.”

Section 16-3-114(c) requires de novo review of agency legal conclusions and affirmance only when those conclusions accord with law.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Stevens v. State Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Safety & Compensation · filed 2014-12-02(c)

We review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo, and will affirm only if the agency’s conclusions are in accordance with the law. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c); Kenyon, 2011 WY 14, ¶ 13, 247 P.3d at 849.

Under section 16-3-114(c), administrative questions of law receive de novo review and a reviewing court corrects an agency’s failure to apply the correct legal rule.

Worker's Compensation Claim of David J. Hartmann v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Department of Workforce Services · filed 2015-01-06(c)

Questions of law raised in an administrative context are reviewed by this Court de novo. Voss v. Albany County Comm’rs, 2003 WY 94, ¶ 9, 74 P.3d 714, 718 (Wyo. 2003). When an agency has not applied the correct rule of law, we correct the agency’s error.

Under section 16-3-114(c), agency legal conclusions are affirmed only when they accord with law, and courts independently correct interpretation or application errors.

Mountain Vista Retirement Residence v. Fremont County Assessor · filed 2015-09-02(c)

An agency’s conclusions of law can be affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. ... Our function is to correct any error that an agency makes in its interpretation or application of the law.”

Section 16-3-114(c) requires de novo review of agency legal conclusions and permits affirmance only when those conclusions accord with law.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of: Tommy Hood v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Workforce Se · filed 2016-10-28(c)

In all cases, we review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo and affirm only when the agency’s conclusions are in accordance with the law.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii), courts review agency legal conclusions de novo and affirm them only when they accord with law.

State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division v. Cody Beazer and H · filed 2016-11-23(c)(ii)

As always, we review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo, and [w]e will affirm an agency’s legal conclusion only if it is in accordance with the law.

Under subsection (c)(ii)(A), an agency’s legal conclusion is affirmed only when it accords with law.

Casiano v. State ex rel. Wyo. Dep't of Transp. · filed 2019-02-01(c)(ii)(A)

"[W]e will affirm an agency's legal conclusion only if it is in accordance with the law."

Under subsection (c)(ii)(A), uncontested statutory-interpretation issues are questions of law reviewed de novo rather than agency fact findings reviewed for substantial evidence.

Gerber v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Workforce Services, Unemployment Insurance Commission · filed 2020-07-13(c)(ii)(A)

While we would normally review the Commission’s findings of fact under the substantial evidence standard, the facts here are not contested. In this case, we are required to interpret the applicable statutes. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law subject to de novo review.

Subsection (c) subjects an agency’s legal conclusions to de novo review.

Thor Hallingbye, M.D., ex rel. Wyoming Board of Medicine v. Rebecca Painter, M.D. · filed 2021-06-23(c)

“We review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo.”

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) requires de novo review of agency legal conclusions and affirmance only when they accord with law.

Ross v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2022-01-25(c)(ii)(A)

Finally, “[w]e review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo and affirm only if its conclusions are in accordance with the law.” Triplett, 2021 WY 118, ¶ 35, 497 P.3d at 911 (citing Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A)).

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), whether a school board relied on an existing standard of conduct is reviewed de novo, and dismissal based on a nonexistent standard is contrary to law.

Board of Trustees of Lincoln County School District Number Two v. Earling · filed 2022-02-09(c)(ii)(A)

We answer that question de novo. ... Invoking deference principles, the Board read standards of conduct into the EHAA and EHAA-R that did not exist. As a result, Mr. Earling’s dismissal is contrary to law.

Under section 16-3-114(c), undisputed agency cases turning on statutory interpretation receive de novo review, with legal conclusions affirmed when lawful and corrected when not.

Wyoming Department of Revenue v. Wpx Energy Rocky Mountain, Llc. · filed 2022-08-24(c)

Ordinarily, we would review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence. ... In this case, however, the underlying facts are largely undisputed, and the crux of the dispute requires us to interpret the netback valuation statute, which is a matter of law subject to de novo review. ... We likewise review the Board’s conclusions of law de novo, affirming them when they are in accordance with law and correcting them when they are not.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) requires de novo review of disputed agency legal conclusions and affirmance only when they accord with law.

Solvay Chemicals, Inc. v. Wyoming Department of Revenue · filed 2022-09-29(c)(ii)(A)

In this case, however, Solvay does not dispute the Board’s factual findings about whether the WMG is taxable but rather its conclusions of law, namely, its interpretation of the relevant statutes. “We review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo and affirm when they are in accordance with the law.”

Under subsection (c)(ii)(A), courts review agency legal conclusions de novo and affirm only when the agency applied the law correctly.

Big Al's Towing and Recovery v. State of Wyoming, Department of Revenue · filed 2022-11-15(c)(ii)(A)

We review the Board’s decision pursuant to the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, affording no deference to the district court’s decision. ... We review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo and affirm when they are in accordance with the law.

When an administrative appeal presents no evidentiary dispute, subsection (c)(ii)(A) asks only whether the agency's legal conclusion accords with law, with no deference to the agency's interpretation or application.

Gray v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2023-12-19(c)(ii)(A)

Absent evidentiary dispute, the standard of review for contested case hearings is simply stated as whether an agency’s conclusions are in accordance with the law. ... Under this standard of review, we afford no deference to the agency’s determination and will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law.

Under subsection (c)(ii)(A), courts review agency legal conclusions and interpretations of statutes and implementing regulations de novo, without deference to the district court.

Gracie and Jeff Richardson, Guardians of Jeffery Richardson v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Wyoming Department of Health · filed 2024-04-29(c)(ii)(A)

This Court reviews agency actions as if the case came directly from the agency and gives no deference to the district court. ... We review de novo the Department’s conclusions of law and its interpretation of statutes and implementing regulations.

Section 16-3-114(a) authorizes judicial review only for a person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by agency action, requiring a legally recognizable interest and perceptible rather than speculative harm.

Roe v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2000-02-24(a)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) (LEXIS 1999) authorizes judicial review. of an agency action for only those persons “aggrieved or adversely affected in fact” by the challenged action. An aggrieved or adversely affected person is one who has a legally recognizable interest in that which will be affected by the action. ... A potential litigant must show injury or potential injury by “alleging] a perceptible, rather than a speculative, harm resulting from the agency action.” ... Given the Roes’ failure to present specific, articulable facts to demonstrate how they were harmed by the Board’s decision, we hold that the district court was without jurisdiction to decide their case.

Section 16-3-114(a) permits judicial review only by a statutorily defined person aggrieved or adversely affected by a final agency decision, and an agency excluded from that definition cannot appeal such a decision.

State Ex Rel. Sublette County Board of County Commissioners v. State · filed 2001-10-04(a)

Only a "person" aggrieved or adversely affected by a final decision of an agency may appeal to a district court. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) (LexisNexis 2001). The statutory definition of "person" expressly excludes an agency, so an agency is not allowed to appeal an adverse decision. ... The board of county commissioners is a board pursuant to the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act and is within the definition of an agency, which is specifically precluded from seeking review of an administrative decision. It has no standing.

Section 16-3-114(a) authorizes judicial review only for a person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact, and broad allegations of possible future harm do not satisfy that standing requirement.

Jolley v. State Loan & Investment Board · filed 2002-01-25(a)

Judicial review of an agency action is authorized by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) only for those persons "aggrieved or adversely affected in fact" by the challenged action. ... Claims of injury of a broad and general nature are not sufficient to demonstrate that Appellant was "aggrieved or adversely affected in fact" by the Boards' actions.

Section 16-3-114(a) authorizes judicial review only for persons aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by the challenged agency action.

Jacobs v. STATE WORKERS'SAFETY & COMP. · filed 2004-11-10(a)

We have held that "[j]udicial review of an agency action is authorized by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a)[ [1] ] only for those persons `aggrieved or adversely affected in fact' by the challenged action."

Section 16-3-114(a) authorizes judicial review only for a person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact, requiring a legally recognizable interest and perceptible rather than speculative harm.

Jacobs v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2004-11-10(a)

“An aggrieved or adversely affected person is one who has a legally recognizable interest in that which will be affected by the action. ... A potential litigant must show injury or potential injury by ‘al-leg[ing] a perceptible, rather than a speculative, harm resulting from the agency action.’

Section 16-3-114(a) entitles a person aggrieved or adversely affected by agency action or inaction to judicial review in district court.

Town of Evansville Police Department v. Porter · filed 2011-06-01(a)

Under Wyo. Stat, Ann. § 16-3-114(a) (Lexis-Nexis 2009), "any person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact ... by other agency action or inaction, or any person affected in fact by a rule adopted by an agency, is entitled to judicial review in the district court for the county in which the administrative action or inaction was taken."

Section 16-3-114(a) permits judicial review of agency action or inaction only for a person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by the challenged conduct.

Miller v. Wyoming Department of Health · filed 2012-05-09(a)

While it is clear that the district court and this Court are granted authority to review agency action or inaction by the Wyoming Statutes and Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure as previously set forth, it is critical to understand that judicial review of an agency action or inaction is "only for those persons 'aggrieved or adversely affected in fact' by the challenged action."

A party is aggrieved or adversely affected in fact under section 16-3-114(a) when an agency’s partial rejection of that party’s position leaves the party seeking additional relief from the decision.

Garber v. Wagonhound Land & Livestock Co. · filed 2012-06-22(a)

At any rate, we conclude that the Objectors have standing to appeal under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) as they were "aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by a final decision of an agency in a contested case." ... The Objectors' claim that the Board should have ordered additional reductions of the transferred water right confirms that they were adversely affected by its decision.

Section 16-3-114 permits judicial review of agency inaction as well as agency action.

Mountain Regional Services, Inc. v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Health · filed 2014-05-29(a)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114 expressly provides for judicial review of “agency action or inaction.”

Subsection (a) permits judicial review for a person aggrieved or adversely affected by a final agency decision after a contested-case hearing.

Wyodak Resources Development Corp. v. Wyoming Department of Revenue · filed 2017-01-23(a)

Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) (Lexis Nexis 2015), a person aggrieved or adversely affected by a final agency decision after a contested case hearing may seek judicial review of the decision.

Subsection (a) makes standing to seek judicial review of administrative action a question of statutory standing for a person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact.

HB Family Limited Partnership, a Wyoming limited partnership Robbin D. Mommsen, Trustee of the Robbin D. Mommsen Trust d · filed 2020-07-28(a)

Accordingly, whether a party has standing to seek judicial review of administrative actions is a question of statutory standing.

Subsection (a) allows an aggrieved party to obtain judicial review of agency action unless a statutory or common-law provision expressly precludes or limits review.

Campbell County Board of Commissioners v. Wyoming Horse Racing, Llc and Wyoming Downs, Llc · filed 2023-01-31(a)

Where, as here, there is no issue as to the exhaustion of administrative remedies, WAPA makes clear judicial review for an aggrieved or adversely affected party is limited only if a “statutory or common-law provision” expressly precludes or limits judicial review.

Subsection (a) grants judicial review only in the absence of a statute precluding it, so an express statutory bar to appealing a liquor-license transfer denial defeats WAPA review of both substantive and procedural challenges.

Elliott v. Natrona County Board of Commissioners · filed 2023-06-13(a)

The plain language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a), allows judicial review absent a statute precluding judicial review. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 12-4-104(e) precludes judicial review of denial of a liquor license transfer. Mr. Elliott has no right of appeal under WAPA.

Even when a zoning decision is a legislative act whose merits are not reviewable under subsection (a), courts may review whether the agency followed its governing rules and regulations.

V. Kathie Brazinski Case M. Brown Margaret E. Creel Joseph M. Demarsh Jan Demarsh-Lovett Lloyd Dorsey and Michele W. Dor · filed 2024-04-10(a)

Given this history, courts clearly have a role in determining whether an agency followed its rules and regulations in making a zoning decision. We will, therefore, review the Objectors’ claims that the Board violated its rules and regulations when it approved the Rafter J PUD Amendment.

A final agency decision ends the administrative proceeding with nothing left to accomplish, and a petition filed more than thirty days after service of that decision is untimely and leaves the district court without jurisdiction.

Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods, an unincorporated association; Terry and Diana Skinner; Dan and Konnie Haman; Patrick a · filed 2025-06-13(a)

[A] final administrative order is one ending the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be accomplished. If the agency retains the matter for further action, the order is not final. ... The “timely filing of a petition for review of administrative action is mandatory and jurisdictional.”

When the party bearing the burden of proof loses before the agency, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) requires deference to agency fact findings unless they are clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, while still requiring examination of conflicting evidence for rationality.

Payne v. Frontier Refining, Inc. · filed 1999-12-29(c)(ii)(A)

When, as in this case, a hearing examiner decides that a party charged with the burden of proof has failed to meet that burden, the case is reviewed under the “[a]r-bitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law” standard of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) (Lexis 1999). ... A hearing examiner’s findings of fact are accorded deference, and the hearing examiner’s decision will not be overturned unless it is clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. ... Demonstrating evidentiary contradictions in the record does not establish the ruling was irrational, but we do examine conflicting evidence to determine if the agency reasonably could have made its finding and order based upon all of the evidence before it. ... Therefore, after reviewing the entire record in this case, we conclude that the hearing examiner’s finding on the issue of prejudice in monitoring medical treatment is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), a court reviewing an agency’s determination that a claimant failed to carry the burden of proof examines the entire record for abuse of discretion.

Nissen v. Cheyenne Frontier Days, Inc. · filed 1999-06-29(c)(ii)(A)

Instead, in determining whether or not the agency decision was an abuse of discretion, we must examine the entire record. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16 — 3— 114(c). ... The hearing examiner acted appropriately, and we find no abuse of discretion.

When an agency finds that the party bearing the burden of proof failed to meet it, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) permits reversal only when the agency’s factual decision is clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Bucklin v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2001-10-19(c)(ii)(A)

When an agency decides that the party charged with the burden of proof has failed to meet that burden, the case is reviewed under the "[alrbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law" language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)ii)(A) (LexisNexis 2001). ... The deference normally accorded to the findings of fact by a trial court is extended to the administrative agency, and the agency's decision as to the facts will not be overturned unless it is clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. ... 'We hold that the district court erred in affirming the Commission's determination that Bucklin "failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that treatment and surgery of her neck and shoulder injury were not related to a preexisting cancer and are related to her work injury of August 18, 1998."

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires whole-record review of an agency finding that the burdened party failed to prove the claim, asking whether the decision is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Block v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'SAFETY & COMP. DIV. · filed 2009-03-10(c)(ii)(E)

The scope of our review of administrative agency decisions is dictated by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii) (LexisNexis 2007), which requires us to: ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. ... In this case, because the hearing officer decided Block failed to adequately prove his case, we review the entire record to determine if the decision is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires whole-record substantial-evidence review of an agency’s determination that a claimant failed to carry the burden of proof.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Dutcher v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2010-02-04(c)(ii)(E)

Our review is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009), which provides: ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. ... In this case, Mr. Dutcher challenges the hearing examiner's determination that he did not meet his burden of proving that his brachial plexopathy and seizure were related to his employment.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) reviews an agency’s rejection of a burdened party’s evidence for substantial evidence by asking whether the rejection is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the entire record.

Moss v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'COMP. DIV. · filed 2010-05-25(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 an administrative agency determines that the burdened party failed to meet his burden of proof, we 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.

When the claimant bears the burden and loses before the agency, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires review of whether that result is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the record as a whole.

Langberg v. STATE EX REL. WY. WORK. SAFETY · filed 2009-03-18(c)(ii)(E)

If the OAH determines the claimant did not meet his or her burden of proof, we review the finding to determine "whether that conclusion was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record as a whole." ... Given this evidence, and upon review of the record as a whole, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a finding that Langberg's work-related injuries led to his need for surgery.

When an agency finds that the party bearing the burden of proof failed to meet it, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) asks whether rejecting that party’s evidence was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the entire record.

In Re Kaczmarek · filed 2009-09-03(c)(ii)(E)

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 finding that the burdened party failed to prove a claim by asking whether that conclusion is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the whole record.

Judd v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2010-06-25(c)(ii)(E)

We review an agency's finding that the burdened party failed to prove all the elements of his claim to determine "whether that conclusion was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record as a whole."

When the burdened party loses before the agency, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) asks whether substantial evidence supports rejection of that party's proof by testing the decision against the overwhelming weight of the whole record.

Glaze v. STATE EX REL. DIVISION · filed 2009-08-19(c)(ii)(E)

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.

Under section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), an agency's rejection of the burdened party's proof is unsupported by substantial evidence when it is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the record.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Glaze v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2009-08-19(c)(ii)(E)

The Medical Commission's finding that Mr. Glaze did not meet his burden of proving that he was entitled to additional TTD benefits under §§ 27-14-605(a) and 27-14-404(b) is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Consequently, its ruling is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires de novo review of agency legal questions and substantial-evidence review of agency findings that the burdened party failed to prove a claim.

Taylor v. State Ex. Rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2010-06-09(c)

Our review is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009), which provides: ... This issue presents a question of law, which we review de novo. ... To the extent that the issue is presented, we review the Commission's conclusion that Mr. Taylor did not meet his burden of proving that his 2007 chiropractic care was related to his 1991 work related injury by applying the substantial evidence standard.

When a hearing examiner finds that the burdened party failed to carry its proof, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) requires review of whether that determination contradicts the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of: Allen Trump v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety a · filed 2013-11-08(c)(ii)(E)

Where the hearing examiner determines that the burdened party failed to meet his burden of proof, we must decide whether that determination was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) applies whole-record reasonable-mind review when the burdened party prevails and overwhelming-weight review when the agency finds the burden was not met.

State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division v. Cave · filed 2011-09-20(c)(ii)(E)

Our review of the agency's decision is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2011), which requires in pertinent part that a reviewing court: ... (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 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 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.

When the burdened party prevails before the agency, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) asks whether the entire record contains relevant evidence a reasonable mind could accept in support of that finding.

Miller v. State ex rel. Wyoming Department of Transportation · filed 2012-08-31(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 conclusions.

When an agency determines that the burdened party failed to meet its proof, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) asks whether rejecting that party’s evidence was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the record as a whole.

Stallman v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division · filed 2013-03-12(c)(ii)(E)

When an administrative agency determines that the burdened party failed to meet his burden of proof, we 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.

When the hearing examiner finds that the burdened party failed to meet its proof, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) asks whether rejecting that party’s evidence is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the entire record.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Little v. State ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2013-08-22(c)(ii)(E)

When 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) requires substantial-evidence review of agency facts and asks whether a claimant’s failure-of-proof finding is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the whole record.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim Of: Kristi Leavitt v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety · filed 2013-08-12(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. ... Substantial evidence is 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. ... Where a hearing examiner determines that a claimant has failed to carry her burden of proof, this Court must decide whether that determination was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

When an agency finds that the burdened party failed to prove a claim, section 16-3-114(c) asks whether substantial evidence supports rejection of that party’s evidence by considering the record’s overwhelming weight.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Bailey v. State Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services · filed 2015-02-10(c)

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.

When an agency rules that a claimant failed to carry the burden of proof, section 16-3-114(c) asks whether substantial evidence supports rejection of the claimant’s evidence by testing the conclusion against the overwhelming weight of the record.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Jaime Guerrero v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Department of Workforce Services · filed 2015-06-19(c)

When an agency rules that the claimant did not satisfy his burden of proof, we apply the following 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.

When an agency finds that the burdened party failed to prove a claim, subsection (c)(ii)(E) asks whether rejecting that party's evidence was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the whole record.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of Todd Jensen, an Employee of R.S. Bennett Construction: Todd Jensen v · filed 2016-08-30(c)(ii)(E)

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.

Failure-of-proof review under subsection (c)(ii)(E) asks whether the agency reasonably rejected the burdened party's evidence, not whether it also had a basis to accept that evidence.

Boyce v. State ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2017-08-31(c)(ii)(E)

The question on appeal is not whether the Medical Commission had a basis for accepting Dr. Walker’s opinion. The question is whether the Commission acted reasonably in rejecting that opinion as speculative, or whether the Commission’s rejection of the evidence was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

An agency's rejection of evidence can survive subsection (c)(ii)(E) review only when the agency gives reasons grounded in credibility determinations or other record factors.

State ex rel. Department of Workforce Services v. Williams · filed 2018-02-05(c)(ii)(E)

Of course the OAH could reject Ms. Boltin’s testimony and any other medical evidence in the record, but if that rejection is to be sustained on review, the OAH must provide “reasons for doing so based upon determinations of credibility or other factors contained in the record.”

When both parties submit evidence and the agency finds the claimant failed to carry the burden of proof, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) asks whether the rejection is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the record.

Boylen v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel., Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2022-03-22(c)(ii)(E)

Where, as here, both parties submit evidence, we apply the substantial evidence test to fact findings. ... And when reviewing an agency’s decision that a claimant did not satisfy her 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.

When both sides submit evidence and the agency rejects the burdened party's proof, subsection (c)(ii)(E) asks whether that rejection contradicts the overwhelming weight of the whole record.

Vandom v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2023-05-30(c)(ii)(E)

Where, as here, both parties submit evidence, we apply the substantial evidence test to fact findings. ... [W]e 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.

When an agency finds that the claimant did not carry her burden, subsection (c)(ii)(E) asks whether the agency reasonably rejected her evidence or instead reached a conclusion contrary to the overwhelming weight of the whole record.

Valencia v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2024-03-21(c)(ii)(E)

If the hearing examiner determined that the burdened party failed to meet [her] 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. ... 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 on all the evidence before it.

Section 16-3-114(b) permits Wyoming Supreme Court rules governing the record and supplemental evidence in agency review to supersede conflicting preexisting statutory provisions.

Dunning v. Sheridan County Board of Commissioners · filed 1999-06-10(b)

At the time our rule regarding supplementary evidence was adopted, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-9-103 governing Kiewit's statutory right of appeal was in existence. Thus, to the extent that our rules requiring Kiewit’s presentation of evidence to the Board may conflict with this statutory right of appeal, the Rules take precedence pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(b).