Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) supplies a general arbitrary-and-capricious review standard, but a statute prescribing a specific procedure for appealing an agency's damages determination controls over that general WAPA review.

Thunderbasin Land, Livestock & Investment Co. v. County of Laramie County · filed 2000-05-02(c)(ii)(A)

Although the WAPA provides that courts must review an agency decision to determine whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law, a statute that specifies the procedure in an appeal of an agency's damages determination controls.

The specific venue provision for State Board of Equalization tax appeals controls over section 16-3-114(a)'s general administrative-appeal venue provision, so one district where the property is located provides adequate judicial review without duplicative filings.

State Ex Rel. Wyoming Department of Revenue v. Buggy Bath Unlimited, Inc. · filed 2001-03-08(a)

Applying this rule of statutory construction, we conclude that the specific provision of § which addresses tax appeals from the Board of Equalization, controls over the general administrative appeals provision of § 16-3-114(a). ... This being the case, proper filing of appeals from the Board of Equalization should be made to the district court of the county in which the property, or some part thereof, is located. There is no need for duplicative filings when property is located in multiple jurisdictions. One jurisdiction will provide adequate access for judicial review.

Section 16-3-114(b) grants rulemaking authority only to aid management of the judicial process, permitting exclusion of a sheriff’s judicial functions from agency review while leaving the sheriff’s administrative and executive acts reviewable.

Fisch v. Allsop · filed 2000-04-11(b)

We perceive that our authority, pursuant to Wyo. Stat, Ann. § 16-3-114(b), was granted solely for the purpose of aiding in ... our management of the judicial process. Thus, we have the authority to construe such a procedural rule to limit review of only those actions of the Sheriff undertaken as an officer of the court, such as serving subpoenas and executing warrants. To construe the rule as the Sheriff desires would afford substantive meaning rather than procedural effect to that rule We hold that actions undertaken in an administrative role or accomplishing an executive function, such as personnel decisions and equipment purchases, remain subject to the review process designed for administrative agencies.

An agency summary-judgment order is reviewed de novo under section 16-3-114(c), using the same standards and materials as the agency and viewing the record favorably to the nonmovant.

Rollins v. Tribune-Eagle · filed 2007-02-16(c)(ii)(A)

Because summary judgment may be granted only when there are no issues of material fact and the decision can be made as a matter of law, our plenary standard for reviewing summary judgments is consistent with our standard for judicial review of administrative actions in which we hold unlawful and set aside agency action which is not in accordance with law. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2005). Thus, we review an agency's order granting a summary judgment in the same manner as in the civil context by employing our de novo standard of review and utilizing the same standards and reviewing the same materials as the ageney.

Section 16-3-114 requires an agency summary-judgment order to be reviewed de novo under the same standards and on the same materials used by the agency.

Sierra Club v. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality · filed 2011-03-09(c)

[Wle review an agency's order granting a summary judgment in the same manner as in the civil context by employing our de novo standard of review and utilizing the same standards and reviewing the same materials as the agency.

Under section 16-3-114(c), an agency's summary-judgment ruling is reviewed de novo using the same materials and standards used by the agency.

Vogel v. Onyx Acceptance Corp. · filed 2011-12-19(c)

We review summary judgment rulings de novo, using the same materials and following the same standards as the OAH.

Sections 16-3-114(a) and (c)(i) permit a person aggrieved by agency delay to seek judicial review compelling action, while a missed deadline does not divest the agency of jurisdiction absent an express consequence.

Scott v. Board of Trustees of Fremont County School District Number One · filed 2015-09-18(a), (c)(i)

It expressly provides that the reviewing court shall “Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Id., § 16-3-114(c)(i). Thus, when an agency fails to comply with a deadline or other time limit, the aggrieved party may file a motion asking the agency for prompt action. If that motion fails, the aggrieved party may seek judicial review to compel the unlawfully withheld action. However, when an agency misses a statutory or regulatory deadline for taking action that does not result in a loss of subject matter jurisdiction unless that result is unequivocally specified in the applicable statute or regulation.

When agency action lacks record support, omits relevant factors, or cannot be evaluated on the record, judicial review ordinarily remands for further agency investigation or explanation.

Hart by and through Hart v. State ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2018-09-07(c)

If the record before the agency does not support the agency action, if the agency has not considered all relevant factors, or if the reviewing court simply cannot evaluate the challenged agency action on the basis of the record before it, the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C) directs a reviewing court to set aside agency action that exceeds the agency’s statutory jurisdiction or authority, although nonjurisdictional procedural objections may be waived.

In Re Worker's Comp. Claim of Wright · filed 1999-07-12(c)(ii)(C)

Generally, review of an appeal from an administrative decision is governed by the provisions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C) (LEXIS 1999), which directs a reviewing court to "[h]old unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be * * * [i]n excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right[.]" ... However, the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction over future claims.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C) directs courts to set aside agency action exceeding statutory jurisdiction, and a party cannot waive a subject-matter-jurisdiction objection.

State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division v. Wright · filed 1999-07-12(c)(ii)(C)

Generally, review of an appeal from an administrative decision is governed by the provisions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C) (LEXIS 1999), which directs a reviewing court to-“[h]old unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be * * * [i]n excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right[.]” ... Because this issue relates to subject matter jurisdiction, it is not waived. ... However, the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction over future claims.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C) requires invalidation of agency action that exceeds the authority granted to the agency by statute.

Amoco Production Co. v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization · filed 2000-04-10(c)(ii)(C)

The Board went beyond its statutory grant of authority when it proceeded to value Amoco's property according to its order. We invalidate that decision as being contrary to law, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)@i)(C), and remand the case for a new hearing.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C) requires a court to set aside agency action exceeding statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.

Lineberger v. Wyoming State Board of Outfitters & Professional Guides · filed 2002-04-11(c)(ii)(C)

The standard for judicial review of administrative agency action is found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2001): ... (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: ‘ ... (C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right; ... As to the single issue identified by this Court for resolution; we conclude that the Board does not have the statutory authority to impose a restriction upon a professional guide's license that requires the licensee voluntarily to relinquish the license in the event he is convicted of violating any state or federal law.

When an administrative appeal presents only statutory-interpretation issues, section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C) asks whether the agency acted beyond its statutory jurisdiction, authority, or right.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality v. Wyoming Outdoor Council · filed 2012-10-19(c)(ii)(C)

Judicial review of administrative agency decisions is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2011). However, the issues now before us involve only interpretation of the relevant statutes. Accordingly, the only question under this statute is whether DEQ's actions were "[iJn excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right."

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) and (C) directs review of whether agency action is contrary to law or exceeds statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.

Goodman v. Voss · filed 2011-02-25(c)(ii)(A), (C)

For present purposes, we will simply state that our review is guided by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009), and that our focus in the instant case is upon the questions of whether the Board acted "not in accordance with law," or "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right."

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C) requires reversal when an agency exceeds its statutory authority by deciding issues concerning nonparties who did not appeal their administrative determinations.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Wyoming Department of Revenue · filed 2011-12-09(c)(ii)(C)

Our review of an administrative agency's decision is governed by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, which, in pertinent part, provides that the reviewing court shall; ... (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: ... (C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right; ... In the context of severance tax levied on natural gas production, the Court holds the Board does not have the authority to determine the valuation point for "non-party" persons or entities that do not appeal their tax assessments. In essence, issues related to Howell's and Yates' share of gas were not properly before Board, the Board acted beyond its statutory authority in rendering decisions on these issues, and as such, these determinations must be reversed.

Subsection (c) requires a court to interpret the governing statutes and set aside agency action that exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

State of Wyoming, Ex Rel., Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Safety and Compensation Division v. Clemen · filed 2014-05-29(c)

In accordance with the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, the Court will interpret the statutory provisions, and set aside the agency’s action if it exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

Subsection (c)(ii)(C) requires an agency decision to be held unlawful and set aside when it exceeds statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations or lacks statutory right.

Timothy S. Tarver and Carole A. Tarver v. City of Sheridan Board of Adjustments, Robert L. Bernard and Beverly D. Bernar · filed 2014-06-05(c)(ii)(C)

As we noted in the standard of review section, above, an agency’s decision will be held unlawful and set aside if it is “[i]n excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right.”

An agency exceeds its authority under subsection (c)(ii)(C) when it supplies its own expert opinions or facts not contained in the record.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of: Valerie Price v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Workforce · filed 2017-02-16(c)(ii)(C)

However, the Commission is not free to provide its own version of the facts or to supplement the facts with evidence that is not contained in the record. It was improper for the Commission to do so here. We agree that the Commission acted in excess of its authority when it relied upon its own expert opinions and facts that were not in the record.

Subsection (c)(ii)(C) requires reversal and vacatur when an agency exceeds its statutory authority.

Asphalt Specialties Co., Inc., a Colorado Corporation v. Laramie County Planning Commission · filed 2021-02-01(c)(ii)(C)

The Commission therefore exceeded its statutory authority when it utilized its comprehensive land use plan and the site plan review process to outright deny ASCI use of its land for a limited gravel mining operation. We reverse and set aside the Commission’s decision under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C).

Under section 16-3-114(c), the reviewing court gives no deference to the district court, reviews the agency directly, and disturbs agency fact findings only when clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division v. Summers · filed 1999-08-20(c)

We afford no deference to the decision of the district court; rather, we consider the case as if it had come directly to us from the agency. ... We will not disturb an agency’s finding of fact unless it is clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c) confines judicial review to its listed matters; the supreme court reviews the agency directly, defers to agency fact findings unless they contradict the overwhelming weight of evidence, and reviews legal conclusions without that deference.

Wilkinson v. STATE EX REL. WKR'S SAFETY AND COMP. DIV. · filed 1999-12-07(c)

Judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to a determination of the matters set out in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999). ... This Court will not disturb an agency's findings of fact unless they are clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. ... We do not, however, grant the same deference to an agency's conclusions of law.

Section 16-3-114(c) confines review to its enumerated matters and requires the supreme court to conduct an independent inquiry using the same record and review standards as the district court.

Judge v. Department of Employment, Unemployment Insurance Commission · filed 2002-07-15(c)

A reviewing court is "confined to the matters explicitly referenced in W.S. 16-3-114(c) and W.R.A.P. 12.09." ... "On appeal from a district court's consideration of an ageney action, this court is not bound by the conclusions of the reviewing court. Rather, using the same evidentiary materials and the same review standards as the district court, we conduct an independent inquiry into the matter, just as if it had proceeded directly to us from the agency." ... We conclude that substantial evidence, as set out more fully above, supports the Commission's decision to disqualify Judge from benefits.

Under section 16-3-114(c), the supreme court reviews the agency directly without special deference to the district court, considering the evidence and reasonableness of agency judgment while correcting legal errors.

King v. Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation · filed 2004-05-07(c)

We do not afford any special deference to the district court’s decision when we review a matter initiated before an administrative agency. Rather, this court reviews the case as if it came directly from the administrative 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. If the agency committed any errors of law, this court must correct them.

Under section 16-3-114, the supreme court reviews an administrative appeal as though it came directly from the agency, gives no special deference to the district court, and uses the same statutory review standard as the district court.

Escarcega v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. · filed 2007-03-08(c)

We structure our review as though the appeal were directly from the agency, giving no special deference to the findings of the district court, and we apply the same standard of review used by district courts under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114 (LexisNexis 2005).

Section 16-3-114(c) requires direct review of agency action without deference to the district court, focusing on evidentiary support, reasonableness, and correction of legal errors.

Billings v. Wyoming Board of Outfitters & Professional Guides · filed 2004-04-20(c)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2003) sets forth the standards for judicial review of agency action: ... afford any special deference to the district court’s decision when we review a matter initiated before an administrative agency. Rather, this court reviews the case as if it came directly from the administrative 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 errors of law.... If the agency committed any errors of law, this court must correct them.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires the appellate court to review agency action directly without deferring to the district court’s decision.

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of Mario Arellano, an Employee of L & L Enterprises: L & L Enterprises · filed 2015-02-18(c)

“On appeal from a district court order on petition for review of an administrative agency ruling, we review the case as though it came directly to this Court from the agency and give no deference to the district court’s decision.”

Under subsection (c)(ii)(E), the reviewing court examines the agency directly and sustains fact findings for which the preserved record discloses a rational premise.

Coggins v. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs., Workers' Comp. Div. · filed 2018-07-10(c)(ii)(E)

This Court examines the agency's ruling without giving any deference to the district court's decision. ... In accordance with § 16-3-114(c), we review the agency's factual findings 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.'"

When the state equalization board hears no new evidence, section 16-3-114 treats it as an intermediate reviewer and directs courts to focus on the county board's lawfulness and substantial evidentiary support.

Gray v. Converse County Assessor · filed 2023-12-05(c)

Since in this case the [C]ounty [B]oard was the finder of the fact and the state board heard no additional testimony, we will treat the state board as an intermediate level of review and accord deference only to the [C]ounty [B]oard’s findings of fact. [The] primary focus of our review [is] whether the [C]ounty [B]oard’s decision was lawful and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c) focuses review on whether a county board’s decision is lawful and supported by substantial evidence, without deference to intermediate reviewing bodies.

State of Wyoming v. Uinta County Assessor · filed 2024-10-09(c)

“Our review is focused on the County Board’s decisions, and we do not defer to the decision of the State Board of Equalization or to that of the district court.” ... Our review of the County Board’s decision is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (2023). ... “The primary focus of our review is whether the County Board’s decision was lawful and supported by substantial evidence.”

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) and (E) requires whole-record review and authorizes courts to set aside agency action that is arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Whiteman v. WKR'S SAFETY AND COMP. DIV. · filed 1999-09-07(c)(ii)(A), (E)

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 the 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) requires whole-record review of an agency’s failure-of-proof determination without reweighing credibility, and permits affirmance when the agency’s conclusion is reasonable.

Carrillo v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 1999-09-21(c)

Based on our review of the whole record, we find the hearing examiner’s conclusion was reasonable.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires courts to decide legal questions from the whole record and set aside agency action that is arbitrary, exceeds statutory authority, or lacks substantial evidence.

U S West Communications, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Commission · filed 1999-12-13(c)(ii)(A), (C), (E)

The scope of review of an agency decision is governed and defined by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Lexis 1999), which provides in relevant 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.... 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; ... [or] (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) requires courts to set aside agency action that is arbitrary, unconstitutional, procedurally unlawful, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Antelope Valley Improvement v. State Board of Equalization · filed 2000-01-13(c)(ii)(A), (B), (D), (E)

In reviewing an administrative agency decision on appeal, this Court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action found to be: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege dr immunity; (3) without observance of procedure required by law; or (4) unsupported by substantial evidence. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), (B), (D) and (E) (LEXIS 1999).

Section 16-3-114(c) requires review of the whole record and setting aside agency action that is arbitrary, exceeds statutory authority, violates required procedure, or lacks substantial evidence.

Ireland v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2000-03-02(c)(ii)(A), (C), (D), (E)

Our review of administrative action is limited to a determination of the matters specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(e) (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; ... (C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right; ... (D) Without observance of procedure required by law; or ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires courts to decide legal questions from the whole record and set aside agency decisions that are arbitrary, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

RT Communications, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization · filed 2000-09-29(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999) delineates the seope of appellate review for agency decisions: ... (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. 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 requires courts to review the whole record, set aside arbitrary or unsupported agency action, correct agency legal errors without deference, and uphold supported fact findings without substituting judicial judgment.

Wesaw v. Quality Maintenance · filed 2001-02-20(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Our judicial review is limited to those considerations specified in Wyo. Stat.Ann. § 16-3-114 which provides: 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. Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 16-3-114 (LEXIS 1999).

Section 16-3-114(c) requires a reviewing court to decide presented legal questions, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, determine the meaning or applicability of agency action, and review the cited or whole record with due account for prejudicial error.

Painter v. Abels · filed 2000-03-03(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.

Section 16-3-114(a), together with Wyoming’s appellate rules, failed to assure the prompt judicial review constitutionally required for a licensing scheme burdening protected expression because courts faced no deadline for deciding the challenge.

Franken Equities, L.L.C. v. City of Evanston · filed 1997-06-24(a)

The Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114 (Michie 1977), in conjunction with Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 12, govern the judicial review of decisions rendered by the Evanston Planning and Zoning Commission. ... Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 16-3-114(a) provides for judicial review of agency decisions. ... Thus, the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act in conjunction with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure fail to satisfy the prompt judicial review requirement established in ... Freedman.

A petition filed in the wrong district under section 16-3-114(a) need not be dismissed after the district court certifies the case and the supreme court reviews the agency decision as a court of first instance.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Moller v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2000-10-26(a)

Because we review as a court of first instance in this case, we have little concern about the location in which Moller filed her petition for review. She obviously sought review in a district court, and that court passed the review on to us. Were we to dismiss on the ground raised by the Division, we are certain that Moller would soon seek our review using other avenues. Although infrequently done, at times it is more efficient administration of justice to cut to the chase, rather than require litigants to jump through hoops.

Section 16-3-114 governs appeals from final county-board orders establishing private roads and limits district-court review primarily to statutory compliance and substantial evidentiary support.

Hulse v. First American Title Co. of Crook County · filed 2001-10-12(c)

We have long held that the board's entry of order granting or denying the creation of a private road is final agency action, appeals from which are governed by Wyoming's Administrative Procedures Act. ... Consequently, review by the district court is limited primarily to ensuring the board adhered to the governing statute and that its factual conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires whole-record review, correction of agency legal error, and substantial-evidence review that forbids substituting judicial judgment for supported agency findings.

Bryant v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. · filed 2002-09-25(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Our review of proceedings that involve the suspension of a driver's license is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2001), which provides 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. 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) requires courts to decide relevant legal questions from the whole record and set aside agency action that is arbitrary, contrary to law, or beyond statutory authority.

Wyodak Resources Development Corp. v. Wyoming Department of Revenue · filed 2002-12-17(c)(ii)(A), (C)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2001) of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, which provides in 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. 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[.] ... We affirm an agency’s conclusions of law when they are in accordance with the law.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires whole-record review, decision of all relevant legal questions, and setting aside agency action that is arbitrary, contrary to law, or beyond statutory authority.

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

This Court reviews administrative actions pursuant to the standard articulated by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2003) of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, which provides 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. 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[.] ... An agency's conclusions of law can be affirmed only if they are in accord with the law.

Section 16-3-114(c) requires whole-record review, decision of legal questions, and setting aside agency action that is arbitrary, beyond statutory authority, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Oakley v. Fremont County Community College District · filed 2010-07-30(c)(ii)(A), (C), (E)

Administrative action is reviewed pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(e) (LexisNexis 2009), which provides 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. 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; ... (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.

Subsection (c) requires courts to set aside agency action that is not in accordance with law or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Gray v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2024-08-27(c)(ii)(A), (E)

Our review is governed by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act which, in pertinent part, requires us to set aside agency actions that are “not in accordance with law” or are “[u]nsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.”

Under subsection (c), substantial-evidence review applies to evidentiary findings after a contested case, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.

Powder River Basin Resource Council and the Wyoming Outdoor Council v. Wyoming Public Service Commission and High Plains · filed 2024-08-30(c)

The substantial evidence standard applies to evidentiary findings after contested case proceedings, but we review conclusions of law de novo.

Section 16-3-114 permits direct review of adjudicatory agency action and, absent a specific statutory prohibition, also permits review of legislative agency action subject to separation-of-powers limits.

Warren Livestock, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; JHD Ranch LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; Pilot Pe · filed 2024-09-25(a), (c)

If the court determines that the action is adjudicatory, it is reviewable under well-established law on direct appeal under the WAPA. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114. If the court concludes that the action is legislative and there is no specific statutory prohibition to review, it is reviewable, subject to the limitations discussed, supra.

Section 16-3-114(c) focuses review of a county board’s decision on lawfulness and substantial-evidence support, with agency legal conclusions reviewed de novo.

Contango Resources, Llc v. Fremont County, Wyoming · filed 2025-03-17(c)

Our review of the County Board’s decision is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (2023). ... “The primary focus of our review is whether the County Board’s decision was lawful and supported by substantial evidence.” ... We review the County Board’s conclusions of law de novo.

Subsection (c)(ii)(D) requires courts to set aside agency action taken without required procedure, including referral of a medically contested workers' compensation case to the wrong hearing body.

Polzer v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2025-09-26(c)(ii)(D)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114 governs judicial review of administrative actions, and provides: ... The reviewing court shall: ... (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: ... (D) Without observance of procedure required by law; ... This matter should have been referred to the Medical Commission.

Section 16-3-114 defines the limits of judicial review of agency action and does not give the reviewing court jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of the statute administered by the agency; that challenge must proceed independently by declaratory judgment.

Torres v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'SAFETY & COMPENSATION DIV. · filed 2004-08-12

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114 (LexisNexis 2003) defines the limits of judicial review of administrative agency action. ... W.R.A.P. 12 does not modify or repeal the statute, but implements it by adopting procedures for such judicial review. ... Administrative agencies have no authority to determine the constitutionality of a statute, and thus, on appeal of agency action, neither the district court nor this Court has jurisdiction to consider the issue. However, the right to pursue the constitutionality of the statute under which the agency acts is preserved in W.R.A.P. 12.12 via the declaratory judgment action.

Section 16-3-114(c) does not give courts jurisdiction in an agency appeal to decide the constitutionality of the statute administered by the agency; constitutional relief must be pursued independently.

In Re Williams · filed 2009-04-21(c)

The scope of our review of administrative agency decisions is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2007), which provides in pertinent part: ... The law is clear that administrative agencies have no authority to determine the constitutionality of a statute and that neither the district court nor this Court has jurisdiction on appeal of agency action to consider the issue.

Because section 16-3-114 limits an administrative appeal to matters the agency could decide, neither the district court nor the supreme court may hear a statutory constitutional challenge in that appeal; the challenge requires an independent declaratory-judgment action.

Williams v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division · filed 2009-04-21(c)

The law is clear that administrative agencies have no authority to determine the constitutionality of a statute and that neither the district court nor this Court has jurisdiction on appeal of agency action to consider the issue. ... The proper avenue for challenging the constitutionality of a statute is an independent action for declaratory judgment pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.12.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii) requires a reviewing court to set aside agency action that is arbitrary, unconstitutional, beyond statutory authority, procedurally unlawful, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Williams Production RMT Company v. STATE OF WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE · filed 2005-03-02(c)(ii)(A)-(E)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114 provides for judicial review of administrative agency action. In particular, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (ii) requires the reviewing court to “[hjold 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; ... (C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right; ... (D) Without observance of procedure required by law; or ... (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) requires agency action to be set aside for arbitrariness, capriciousness, legal error, abuse of discretion, constitutional violation, excess of authority, procedural violation, or lack of substantial evidence.

Northfork Citizens for Responsible Development v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2010-04-08(c)(ii)

Rather, we will simply parse the statute and note that a reviewing court must set aside ageney action where the agency: (1) acted arbitrarily; (2) acted capriciously; (8) acted contrary to law; (4) abused its discretion; (5) violated a constitution; (6) acted beyond its statutory authority; (7) failed to observe legally required procedures; or (8) made findings or reached conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 16-3-114(a) does not permit a party reviewing the denial of one application to challenge separate agency action on an earlier application after failing to exhaust remedies and seek timely review of that action.

Penny v. STATE EX REL. MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONS LIC. BD. · filed 2005-09-15(a)

It is too late now, in the judicial review of the denial of that second application, to contest return of the previous application as untimely. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) (LexisNexis 2005) and W.R.A.P. 12.

Section 16-3-114(a) does not permit a party reviewing the denial of one application to challenge separate agency action on an earlier application after failing to exhaust remedies and seek timely review of that action.

Licensure of Penny v. State ex rel. Wyoming Mental Health Professions Licensing Board · filed 2005-09-15(a)

It is too late now, in the judicial review of the denial of that second application, to contest return of the previous application as untimely.

Section 16-3-114(c)'s administrative-review standards apply to appeals from attorney-fee dispute committees, giving deference to committee fact findings while ensuring that substantial evidence supports them.

Cotton v. McCulloh · filed 2005-12-15(c)

By applying our standard of review for administrative decisions, we give deference to the fee dispute committee’s findings of fact, while affording the parties the right to judicial review of the fee dispute committee’s decision to ensure substantial evidence supports those factual findings.

Section 16-3-114(c)’s record-based judicial review does not allow either the reviewing court or the agency to gather evidence outside the record to support its decision.

Tarraferro v. State ex rel. Wyoming Medical Commission · filed 2005-12-02(c)

Of course, this Court cannot gather evidence off the record to support its decision any more than may the Medical Commission.

Section 16-3-114 governs appellate review of administrative-agency action and does not govern review of a district court's actions.

Lykins v. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY · filed 2010-08-18

That statute is part of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, and applies to our review of the actions of an administrative agency. It does not apply to our review of the actions of a district court.

Section 16-3-114 and the appellate rules separate ordinary judicial review of agency decisions from independent constitutional challenges to the statutes administered by agencies.

Wheeler v. STATE EX REL. WYOMING WORKERS'SAFETY & COMP. DIV. · filed 2010-12-10(c)

Our review is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009): ... Our case law, however, prohibits consideration of the constitutionality of a statute in an administrative appeal. ... In Riedel v. Anderson (In re Conflicting Lease Applications), 972 P.2d 586, 586-88 (Wyo. 1999) (per curiam) and Torres, ¶ 8, 95 P.3d at 796, we explained that § 16-3-114 and W.R.A.P. 12.12 work together to delineate the proper courses of action for judicial review of agency decisions and challenges to the constitutionality of agency statutes.

Section 16-3-114(c)(ii) confines review to its listed grounds and retains arbitrary-and-capricious review as a safety net for agency action prejudicing substantial rights or evading another category.

Watkins v. STATE EX REL. WYO. MED. COM'N · filed 2011-03-21(c)(ii)

Review shall be limited to a determination of the matters specified in Wyo. Stat. 16-3-114(c). ... Section 16-3-114(c) provides: ... 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)(E)’s substantial-evidence standard applies to contested cases, while informal non-contested agency proceedings are reviewed only under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard.

Wilson Advisory Committee v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2012-12-21(c)(ii)(A), (E)

We apply the substantial evidence standard in contested cases, with the added "safety net" analysis under the arbitrary and capricious standard. However, we apply only the arbitrary and capricious standard when reviewing agency action resulting from informal non-contested case proceedings. ... We will therefore review the decision resulting from this informal agency proceeding using the arbitrary and capricious standard.

Section 16-3-114(c)’s appellate review standards govern district courts and the supreme court reviewing final agency action, not an agency commission reviewing an intermediate hearing-examiner decision.

Koch v. Department of Employment, Unemployment Insurance Commission · filed 2013-01-31(c)

The only statute within the WAPA that deals with an appellate standard of review is found at Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c), and that establishes the standard of review used by the district courts and this Court when reviewing an agency’s action.

Subsection (c) requires a reviewing court to decide relevant legal questions and review the whole record or the portions cited by a party while accounting for prejudicial error.

Merit Energy Company v. Department of Revenue, State of Wyoming · filed 2013-11-21(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.

Subsection (c) requires substantial-evidence review of agency fact findings and de novo review of agency legal conclusions.

Worker's Compensation Claim of Christina S. Hirsch v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety · filed 2014-05-12(c)

Our review is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2013), examining agency findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard and considering conclusions of law de novo.

Section 16-3-114(c) applies substantial-evidence review to agency fact findings and de novo review to statutory-interpretation questions.

Pacificorp, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · filed 2017-09-14(c)

Judicial review of administrative decisions is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2011). We will uphold the Board of Equalization’s findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. ... Statutory interpretation raises questions of law, which we review de novo.

Subsection (c)(ii)(B) requires a court to set aside an agency decision that is contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity.

Mahoney v. City of Gillette · filed 2019-03-06(c)(ii)(B)

If we determine the Commission's decision is "contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity," we must set it aside.

Subsection (c)’s judicial-review standards apply when an agency decision is certified directly to the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Delcon Partners LLC v. Wyoming Department of Revenue · filed 2019-10-21(c)

We apply the standards set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) when reviewing an agency decision certified to this Court under W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).

Subsection (c) governs judicial review of an agency decision.

Jerald D. Lower v. Peabody Powder River Services, LLC and State of Wyoming ex rel., Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2020-03-04(c)

“Judicial review of an agency’s decision is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c).”

Under section 16-3-114(c), mixed questions of statutory or due-process rights receive substantial-evidence review for agency fact findings and de novo review for legal conclusions.

Johnson v. State of Wyoming ex rel., Wyoming Department of Transportation · filed 2021-10-22(c)

Whether Mr. Johnson was afforded his statutory and due process rights is a mixed question of fact and law. We review an agency’s fact findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence. ... We review the OAH’s conclusion of law that Mr. Johnson’s statutory rights were not violated de novo.

Section 16-3-114(c)’s prejudicial-error rule requires whole-record review for a rational basis despite an agency’s erroneous reliance on facts outside the evidence.

Triplett v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2021-10-28(c)

Here, while the Medical Panel, inappropriately, referred to matters which were not in evidence—persons suffering from hip pain generally do not find relief from standing up—our review must consider the entire record to determine if the Medical Panel’s conclusion was arbitrary or capricious or not in accord with the law, taking “due account . . . of the rule of prejudicial error.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c). In other words, we ask, despite the erroneous insertion of its independent opinion, was there otherwise a rational basis for the Medical Panel’s conclusions? We find there was.

Under section 16-3-114(c), mixed questions of statutory and due-process rights receive substantial-evidence review for agency facts and de novo review for agency legal conclusions.

Steven P. Flauding, Jr. v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Department of Transportation · filed 2021-11-24(c)

Whether Mr. Flauding was afforded his statutory and due process rights is a mixed question of fact and law. ... We apply the substantial evidence standard of review to an agency’s findings of fact. ... Our standard of review of an agency’s conclusions of law is de novo. “We will affirm an agency’s legal conclusion only if it is in accordance with the law.”

Section 16-3-114(c)’s prejudicial-error rule requires whole-record review for a rational basis even when a medical panel improperly refers to matters outside the evidence.

Reichenberg v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division · filed 2022-03-11(c)

While the Medical Panel, inappropriately, referred to matters which were not in evidence, our review must consider the entire record to determine if the Medical Panel’s conclusion was arbitrary or capricious or not in accord with the law, taking “due account . . . of the rule of prejudicial error.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c). In other words, we ask, despite the erroneous insertion of its independent opinion, was there otherwise a rational basis for the Medical Panel’s conclusions? We find there was.

Section 16-3-114(c) starts contested-case fact review with substantial evidence, retains arbitrary-and-capricious review as a safety net, and reviews agency legal conclusions de novo.

Union Telephone Company v. The Wyoming Public Service Commission and It's Wyoming Universal Support Fund Manager and All · filed 2022-04-26(c)(ii)(A), (E)

When the parties submit evidence at a contested case hearing, we start by applying the substantial evidence standard of review to fact findings. ... However, even if the record “contains sufficient evidence to support the ... administrative decision under the substantial evidence test,” we still apply “the arbitrary- ... and-capricious standard as a ‘safety net’ to catch other agency action that may have violated the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act.” ... We review “conclusions of law de novo and affirm only if [they] are in accordance with the law.”

Section 16-3-114(c) starts contested-case fact review with substantial evidence, retains arbitrary-and-capricious review as a safety net, and reviews agency legal conclusions de novo.

City of Rawlins v. Schofield · filed 2022-08-24(c)(ii)(A), (E)

When the parties submit evidence at a contested case hearing, we start by applying the substantial evidence standard of review to fact findings. However, even if the record “contains sufficient evidence to support the administrative decision under the substantial evidence test,” we still apply “the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a ‘safety net’ to catch other agency action that may have violated the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act.” We review “conclusions of law de novo and affirm only if [they] are in accordance with the law.”

Section 16-3-114(c) sustains agency fact findings supported by substantial evidence, reviews agency legal conclusions de novo, and requires correction of legal errors.

Solvay Chemicals, Inc. v. Wyoming Department of Revenue · filed 2022-09-30(c)

We will uphold the Board’s findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. ... “We review an agency’s conclusions of law de novo and affirm when they are in accordance with the law.” ... “We do not afford any deference to an agency’s determination on a question of law and will correct any errors made in interpreting or applying the law.”

In a certified administrative appeal, subsection (c) applies substantial-evidence review to contested-case fact findings and de novo review to legal questions such as statutory and contract interpretation.

Jonah Energy Llc., a Delaware Limited Liability Company v. Wyoming Department of Revenue · filed 2023-08-29(c)

When an administrative agency case is certified to this Court under W.R.A.P. 12.09(b), we apply the standards for judicial review set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c). ... The agency’s findings of fact after a contested case hearing are reviewed using the substantial evidence standard. ... Interpretation of a statute involves a question of law and is reviewed de novo.

For an administrative case certified under appellate Rule 12.09(b), subsection (c) governs review, and an undisputed application of statutory law receives de novo review.

Chesapeake Operating, LLC v. State of Wyoming, Department of Revenue · filed 2023-11-07(c)

When an administrative agency case is certified to this Court under W.R.A.P. 12.09(b), we apply the standards for judicial review set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c). ... Chesapeake does not challenge the Board’s findings of fact. It asserts the Board incorrectly applied the law to the facts. ... Statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de novo review.

Section 16-3-114(a) does not provide APA review of denials of access to public records because the WPRA supplies the governing district court procedure.

Powder River Basin Resource Council v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission · filed 2014-03-12(a)

See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) (LexisNexis 2013) (agency action or inaction is reviewable under the APA unless there is a statutory or common law provision precluding or limiting review). In the case of the WPRA, the legislature determined that disputes over public access must be decided in the district courts. ... Proceedings to challenge denial of access to documents claimed to be public must follow procedures established by the WPRA, and those are not subject to review under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Section 16-3-114 permits judicial review of University of Wyoming agency action, subject to exhaustion of administrative remedies.

University of Wyoming v. Gressley · filed 1999-04-29(a)

Our holding that the issue of unlawful discharge is foreclosed as a matter of collateral estoppel assumes the applicability of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114 (Michie 1997), which provides in pertinent part: ... In order to have the benefit of the holding that the breach of contract claim is barred, the University must be an agency. ... We affirm the Amended Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First, Second and Fourth Claims for Relief in all respects, and we also affirm the ruling of the district court that the University of Wyoming is a “state agency” for purposes of the rule-making requirements of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act.