agency hearing in Wyoming

2019The 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; (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. “[T]he substantial evidence test is the appropriate standar

2019The 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; (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. “[T]he substantial evidence test is the appropriate standar

2014We review an agency's conclusions of law de movo, and "[wle will affirm an agency's legal conclusion only if it is in accordance with the law." Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶ 26 , 188 P.3d 554, 562 (Wyo.2008) (quoting Diamond B Servs., Inc. v. Rohde, 2005 WY 130 , ¶ 12, 120 P.3d 1031, 1038 (Wyo.2005)).

2014We review an agency's conclusions of law de movo, and "[wle will affirm an agency's legal conclusion only if it is in accordance with the law." Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶ 26 , 188 P.3d 554, 562 (Wyo.2008) (quoting Diamond B Servs., Inc. v. Rohde, 2005 WY 130 , ¶ 12, 120 P.3d 1031, 1038 (Wyo.2005)).

2014Reidy v. Stratton Sheep Co., 2006 WY 69, ¶ 7 , 135 P.3d 598, 602-603 (Wyo.2006). [111] We give no deference to a board's conclusions of law.

2014Reidy v. Stratton Sheep Co., 2006 WY 69, ¶ 7 , 135 P.3d 598, 602-603 (Wyo.2006). [111] We give no deference to a board's conclusions of law.

1986The 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; “(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 pro

1986The 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; "(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 pro

2001Matter of Corman, 909 P.2d 966, 970 (Wyo. 1996).

2000When an abuse of discretion is the issue on review, the reviewing court examines the question of whether the agency's "decision was based on a consideration of relevant factors and whether it is rational." Matter of Corman, 909 P.2d 966, 971 (Wyo. 1996).

2000Montana Dakota Utilities Co. v. Public Service Comm'n of Wyoming, 847 P.2d 978, 983 (Wyo.1993); Ahlenmius v. Wyoming Bd. of Professional Geologists, 2 P.3d 1058, 1060 (Wyo.2000).

1993Montana Dakota Utilities v. PSC, 847 P.2d 978, 982 (Wyo.1993) A reviewing court has authority to: (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; (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 s

2002Board of Outfitters & Professional Guides v. Clark, 2001 WY 78, ¶ 10 , 30 P.3d 36, ¶ 10 (Wyo.2001) (citing Dorr v. Board of Certified Public Accountants, 2001 WY 37, ¶ 8 , 21 P.3d 735, ¶ 8 (Wyo.2001)).

2002Board of Outfitters & Professional Guides v. Clark, 2001 WY 78, ¶ 10 , 30 P.3d 36, ¶ 10 (Wyo.2001) (citing Dorr v. Board of Certified Public Accountants, 2001 WY 37, ¶ 8 , 21 P.3d 735, ¶ 8 (Wyo.2001)).

2001Whiteman v. Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 984 P.2d 1079, 1081 (Wyo.1999).

2000The reviewing court shall: [[Image here]] (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 accor- . dance with law; . [[Image here]] ' (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record © of an agency hearing provided by statute. ' 'Substantial evidence is "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind can accept as adequate to support an agency's conclusion." Whiteman v. Workers' Safety & Compensation Div., 984 P.2d 1079, 1081 (Wyo.1999) (quoting Casper Oil Co. v. Evens

1993Further, our standard of review encompasses these principles: When an administrative agency case is certified to this court under W.R.A.P. 12.09, we must review the decision “under the appellate standards applicable to a reviewing court of the first instance.” Application of Campbell County, 731 P.2d 1174, 1175 (Wyo.1987).

1991When an administrative agency case is certified to this court under W.R.A.P. 12.09, we must review the decision “under the appellate standards applicable to a reviewing court of the first instance.” Application of Campbell County, 731 P.2d 1174, 1175 (Wyo.1987).

1992The standard of review to which we adhere is found in Hohnholt v. Basin Electric Power Co-op, 784 P.2d 233, 234 (Wyo.1989), wherein we state: We examine the entire record to determine if there is substantial evidence to support an agency’s findings.

1992The standard of review to which we adhere is found in Hohnholt v. Basin Electric Power Co-op, 784 P.2d 233, 234 (Wyo.1989), wherein we state: We examine the entire record to determine if there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings.

2023Div., 2017 WY 119, ¶ 23 , 403 P.3d 980, 986 (Wyo. 2017)). [¶13] Our review is governed by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, which requires us to “[h]old unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be . . . [u]nsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.” Wyo.

2023Div., 2017 WY 119, ¶ 23 , 403 P.3d 980, 986 (Wyo. 2017)). [¶13] Our review is governed by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, which requires us to “[h]old unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be . . . [u]nsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.” Wyo.

2007The reviewing court shall: (i) Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (Gi) 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; (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 b

2006Bush, ¶ 5, 120 P.3d at 179 .

2006The 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. [¶ 8] In KG Construction, Inc. v. Sherman, 2005 WY 116, ¶ 9 , 120 P.3d 145, 147-48 (Wyo.2005), we explained the standard for reviewing an agency’s factual findings: The substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from contested case proceedings when

2006The 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. [¶ 8] In KG Construction, Inc. v. Sherman, 2005 WY 116, ¶ 9 , 120 P.3d 145, 147-48 (Wyo.2005), we explained the standard for reviewing an agency’s factual findings: The substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from contested case proceedings when

2005Department of Transportation v. Legarda, 2003 WY 130, ¶ 9 , 77 P.3d 708, ¶ 9 (Wyo.2003).

2005Department of Transportation v. Legarda, 2003 WY 130, ¶ 9 , 77 P.3d 708, ¶ 9 (Wyo.2003).

2001Dorr v. Wyoming Board of Certified Public Accountants, 2001 WY 837 ¶ 8, 21 P.3d 785 18 (Wyo.2001); Devous v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 845 P.2d 408, 416 (Wyo.1998).

1996Devous, 845 P.2d at 414 .

2021See, e.g., Garrison v. State, 2018 WY 9, ¶ 19 , 409 P.3d 1209, 1215 (Wyo. 2018).

2021See, e.g., Garrison v. State, 2018 WY 9, ¶ 19 , 409 P.3d 1209, 1215 (Wyo. 2018).

2020We have long recognized that substantial evidence “is more than a mere scintilla” of evidence; it is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [an agency’s] conclusion.” Howard v. Lindmier, 67 Wyo. 78, 87 , 214 P.2d 737, 740 (1950).

2020We have long recognized that substantial evidence “is more than a mere scintilla” of evidence; it is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [an agency’s] conclusion.” Howard v. Lindmier, 67 Wyo. 78, 87 , 214 P.2d 737, 740 (1950).

2014Div., 2008 WY 115, ¶ 15 , 193 P.3d 246, 251 (Wyo.2008), stating that while it may not have been error to admit an anonymous statement into evidence at an agency hearing, it could not, alone, provide the basis for a reasonable decision.

2014Div., 2008 WY 115, ¶ 15 , 193 P.3d 246, 251 (Wyo.2008), stating that while it may not have been error to admit an anonymous statement into evidence at an agency hearing, it could not, alone, provide the basis for a reasonable decision.

2009"The finder of fact is charged with determining the time and cause of a compensable injury; however, whether an employee's claim is to be barred for failure to timely file notice or a claim is a mixed question of fact and law." Iverson v. Frost Constr., 2003 WY 162, ¶ 16 , 81 P.3d 190, 195 (Wyo.2003).

2009"The finder of fact is charged with determining the time and cause of a compensable injury; however, whether an employee's claim is to be barred for failure to timely file notice or a claim is a mixed question of fact and law." Iverson v. Frost Constr., 2003 WY 162, ¶ 16 , 81 P.3d 190, 195 (Wyo.2003).