arbitrary and capricious standard in Wyoming

2024“Findings of fact are supported by 3 substantial evidence if there is relevant evidence in the record which ‘a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s conclusion.’” Id. (quoting Dale v. S&S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶ 11 , 188 P.3d 554, 558 (Wyo. 2008)) (other citations omitted). [¶12] “‘Even if an agency record contains sufficient evidence to support the administrative decision under the substantial evidence test, this Court applies the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a “safety net” to catch other agency action that may have violated the Wyoming Administrative Procedures

2024“Findings of fact are supported by 3 substantial evidence if there is relevant evidence in the record which ‘a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s conclusion.’” Id. (quoting Dale v. S&S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶ 11 , 188 P.3d 554, 558 (Wyo. 2008)) (other citations omitted). [¶12] “‘Even if an agency record contains sufficient evidence to support the administrative decision under the substantial evidence test, this Court applies the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a “safety net” to catch other agency action that may have violated the Wyoming Administrative Procedures

2020Div., 2006 WY 65, ¶ 19 , 135 P.3d 568, 575 (Wyo. 2006) (citations omitted); see also Dale, ¶ 23, 188 P.3d at 561 (“The arbitrary and capricious standard remains a ‘safety net’ to catch agency action which prejudices a party’s substantial rights or which may be contrary to the other W.A.P.A. review standards yet is not easily categorized or fit to any one particular standard.”) (quoting Newman, ¶ 23, 49 P.3d at 172 ).

2012However, "the arbitrary and capricious standard is more lenient and deferential to the agency than the substantial evidence standard because 'it requires only that there be a rational basis for the agency's decision.' " Id. [¶18] Our primary focus in Dale was on determining the appropriate standard for reviewing an agency's factual findings after a contested case hearing.

2015"The arbitrary and capricious standard applies if the agency failed to admit testimony or other evidence that was clearly admissible, or failed to provide appropriate findings of fact or conclusions of law." Id. "'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."" Kenyon, ¶ 813, 247 P.3d at 849 (quoting Moss v. State ex rel.

2015"The arbitrary and capricious standard applies if the agency failed to admit testimony or other evidence that was clearly admissible, or failed to provide appropriate findings of fact or conclusions of law." Id. "'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.'" Kenyon, ¶ 13, 247 P.3d at 849 (quoting Moss v. State ex rel.

2015Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2015 WY 20, ¶ 11 , 342 P.3d 1210, 1213 (Wyo.2015) (quoting Dale, ¶ 22, 188 P.3d at 561 ). [1171 The arbitrary and capricious standard of review is used as a "safety net" to catch ageney action that prejudices a party's substantial rights or is contrary to the other review standards, but is not easily categorized to a particular standard.

2015Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2015 WY 20, ¶ 11 , 342 P.3d 1210, 1213 (Wyo.2015) (quoting Dale, ¶ 22, 188 P.3d at 561 ). [1171 The arbitrary and capricious standard of review is used as a "safety net" to catch ageney action that prejudices a party's substantial rights or is contrary to the other review standards, but is not easily categorized to a particular standard.

2014Div., 2011 WY 14, ¶ 11 , 247 P.3d 845, 849 (Wyo.2011) (quoting Bush, ¶ 5, 120 P.3d at 179). [119] The arbitrary and capricious standard of review is used as a "safety net" to catch agency action that prejudices a party's substantial rights or is contrary to the other review standards, but is not easily categorized to a particular standard.

2013Div., 2011 WY 14, ¶ 11 , 247 P.3d 845, 849 (Wyo.2011) (quoting Bush, ¶ 5, 120 P.3d at 179). [T14] The arbitrary and capricious standard of review is used as a "safety net" to catch agency action that prejudices a party's substantial rights or is contrary to the other review standards, but is not easily categorized to a particular standard.

2012Id., § 8334. [¶15] Two federal cases, Friends of the Bow v. Thompson, 124 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir.1997), and Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 , 91 S.Ct. 814 , 28 L.Ed.2d 186 (1971), abrogated on other grounds, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 , 97 S.Ct. 980 , 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977), demonstrate the applicability of the arbitrary and capricious standard to informal ageney decision making. -In Friends of the Bow, 124 F.3d at 1214-17 , the Tenth Cireuit Court of Appeals applied the arbitrary and capricious standard to review a U.S. Forest Service decision allowing a timber sale on national forest lands.

2012Id., § 8334. [¶15] Two federal cases, Friends of the Bow v. Thompson, 124 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir.1997), and Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 , 91 S.Ct. 814 , 28 L.Ed.2d 186 (1971), abrogated on other grounds, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 , 97 S.Ct. 980 , 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977), demonstrate the applicability of the arbitrary and capricious standard to informal ageney decision making. -In Friends of the Bow, 124 F.3d at 1214-17 , the Tenth Cireuit Court of Appeals applied the arbitrary and capricious standard to review a U.S. Forest Service decision allowing a timber sale on national forest lands.

2024Wilson Advisory Comm., ¶ 21, 292 P.3d at 861 (citations omitted).

2024Wilson Advisory Comm., ¶ 21, 292 P.3d at 861 (citations omitted).

2005Workers' Safety and Compensation Div. v. Jensen, 2001 WY 51, ¶ 10 , 24 P.3d 1133, ¶ 10 (Wyo.2001))' Even when the factual findings are found to be sufficient under the substantial evidence test, ... this court may be required to apply the arbitrary and capricious standard as a "safety net" to catch other agency action [that] prejudiced a party's substantial right to the administrative proceeding or [that] might be contrary to the other WAPA review standards." Id., ¶ 10.

2005Workers' Safety and Compensation Div. v. Jensen, 2001 WY 51, ¶ 10 , 24 P.3d 1133, ¶ 10 (Wyo.2001))' Even when the factual findings are found to be sufficient under the substantial evidence test, ... this court may be required to apply the arbitrary and capricious standard as a "safety net" to catch other agency action [that] prejudiced a party's substantial right to the administrative proceeding or [that] might be contrary to the other WAPA review standards." Id., ¶ 10.

2024Div., 2016 WY 104, ¶ 14 , 382 P.3d 772, 776 (Wyo. 2016), and Dale, ¶ 22, 188 P.3d at 561 ). [¶13] “‘Even if an agency record contains sufficient evidence to support the administrative decision under the substantial evidence test, this Court applies the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a “safety net” to catch other agency action that may have violated the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act.’” Vinson, ¶ 27, 473 P.3d at 309 (quoting Rodgers v. State ex rel.

2024Div., 2016 WY 104, ¶ 14 , 382 P.3d 772, 776 (Wyo. 2016), and Dale, ¶ 22, 188 P.3d at 561 ). [¶13] “‘Even if an agency record contains sufficient evidence to support the administrative decision under the substantial evidence test, this Court applies the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a “safety net” to catch other agency action that may have violated the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act.’” Vinson, ¶ 27, 473 P.3d at 309 (quoting Rodgers v. State ex rel.

2023Id.; see also Rogers, 2016 WY 80, ¶ 17 , 376 P.3d at 1175 .

2023Id.; see also Rogers, 2016 WY 80, ¶ 17 , 376 P.3d at 1175 .

2022Div., 2017 WY 99, ¶ 21 , 402 P.3d 393, 399-40 (Wyo. 2017) (when an administrative agency concludes a worker’s compensation claimant fails to meet his burden of proof, we decide whether, upon review of the entire record, there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision). [¶12] Under § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), a court may set aside an agency decision found to be “[a]rbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]” We do not use the arbitrary and capricious standard to review the sufficiency of the evidence to support an agency’s decision following

2022Div., 2017 WY 99, ¶ 21 , 402 P.3d 393, 399-40 (Wyo. 2017) (when an administrative agency concludes a worker’s compensation claimant fails to meet his burden of proof, we decide whether, upon review of the entire record, there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision). [¶12] Under § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), a court may set aside an agency decision found to be “[a]rbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]” We do not use the arbitrary and capricious standard to review the sufficiency of the evidence to support an agency’s decision following

2020Div., 2013 WY 95, ¶ 19 , 307 P.3d 835, 840 (Wyo. 2013) (quotations omitted). 8 [¶27] “Even if an agency record contains sufficient evidence to support the administrative decision under the substantial evidence test, this Court applies the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a ‘safety net’ to catch other agency action that may have violated the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act [(W.A.P.A.)].” Rodgers v. State ex rel.

2020Div., 2013 WY 95, ¶ 19 , 307 P.3d 835, 840 (Wyo. 2013) (quotations omitted). 8 [¶27] “Even if an agency record contains sufficient evidence to support the administrative decision under the substantial evidence test, this Court applies the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a ‘safety net’ to catch other agency action that may have violated the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act [(W.A.P.A.)].” Rodgers v. State ex rel.

2014Div., 2013 WY 100 , ¶ 28, 308 P.3d 832, 840 (Wyo.2013). [135] We also apply the arbitrary and capricious standard of review as a "safety net" to catch agency action "which prejudices a party's substantial rights or which may be contrary to the other review standards under the Administrative Procedure Act, yet is not easily categorized or fit to any one particular standard." Jacobs v. State ex rel.

2014Div., 2013 WY 100 , ¶ 28, 308 P.3d 832, 840 (Wyo. 2013). [¶35] We also apply the arbitrary and capricious standard of review as a “safety net” to catch agency action “which prejudices a party’s substantial rights or which may be contrary to the other review standards under the Administrative Procedure Act, yet is not easily categorized or fit to any one particular standard.” Jacobs v. State ex rel.

2017“The arbitrary and capricious standard applies if the agency failed to admit testimony or other evidence that was clearly admissible, or failed to provide appropriate findings of fact or conclusions of law.” Jacobs, 2013 WY 62, ¶ 9 , 301 P.3d at 141 .

2017“The arbitrary and capricious standard applies if the agency failed to admit testimony or other evidence that was clearly admissible, or failed to provide appropriate findings of fact or conclusions of law.” Jacobs, 2013 WY 62, ¶ 9 , 301 P.3d at 141 .

2006Decker, ¶ 24, 124 P.3d at 694 .

2006Decker v. Wyoming Medical Comm’n, 2005 WY 160, ¶ 24 , 124 P.3d 686, 694 (Wyo.2005).

2022P’ship, 2020 WY 98, ¶ 33 , 468 P.3d at 1091 (“The arbitrary and capricious standard is more lenient and deferential to the agency than the substantial evidence standard because it requires only that there be a rational basis for the agency’s decision.”). 1 Although Mr. Jolovich disputed the tower’s necessary height before the Board, he did not object to it on the basis that it violated the regulation against oversizing a major utility.

2022P’ship, 2020 WY 98, ¶ 33 , 468 P.3d at 1091 (“The arbitrary and capricious standard is more lenient and deferential to the agency than the substantial evidence standard because it requires only that there be a rational basis for the agency’s decision.”). 1 Although Mr. Jolovich disputed the tower’s necessary height before the Board, he did not object to it on the basis that it violated the regulation against oversizing a major utility.

2017Gilbert [v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Park County, 2010 WY 68 ], ¶ 10, 232 P.3d 17 [,]24 [ (Wyo. 2010) ] (quoting Dale [v. S&S Builders, 2008 WY 84 ], ¶ 12, 188 P.3d [564,] 559 [ (Wyo. 2008) ]).

2017Gilbert [v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Park County, 2010 WY 68 ], ¶ 10, 232 P.3d 17 [,]24 [ (Wyo. 2010) ] (quoting Dale [v. S&S Builders, 2008 WY 84 ], ¶ 12, 188 P.3d [564,] 559 [ (Wyo. 2008) ]).

2022Exaro Energy III, LLC v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Comm’n, 2020 WY 8, ¶ 11 , 455 P.3d 1243, 1248-49 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Rodgers v. State ex rel.

2021Id. [¶18] The Wyoming Teacher Employment Law provides: (a) The board may suspend or dismiss any teacher, or terminate any continuing contract teacher, for any of the following reasons: (i) Incompetency; (ii) Neglect of duty; (iii) Immorality including, without limitation, engaging in conduct with a student which would be a violation of 4 “Even if an agency record contains sufficient evidence to support the administrative decision under the substantial evidence test, this Court applies the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a ‘safety net’ to catch other agency action that may have violated th

2015In re Vandre, 2015 WY 52 , ¶ 21, 346 P.3d 946, 953 , (Wyo.2015).

2015In re Vandre, 2015 WY 52 , ¶ 21, 346 P.3d 946, 953 , (Wyo.2015).

2012Id., § 8334. [¶15] Two federal cases, Friends of the Bow v. Thompson, 124 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir.1997), and Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 , 91 S.Ct. 814 , 28 L.Ed.2d 186 (1971), abrogated on other grounds, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 , 97 S.Ct. 980 , 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977), demonstrate the applicability of the arbitrary and capricious standard to informal ageney decision making. -In Friends of the Bow, 124 F.3d at 1214-17 , the Tenth Cireuit Court of Appeals applied the arbitrary and capricious standard to review a U.S. Forest Service decision allowing a timber sale on national forest lands.

2012Id., § 8334. [¶15] Two federal cases, Friends of the Bow v. Thompson, 124 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir.1997), and Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 , 91 S.Ct. 814 , 28 L.Ed.2d 186 (1971), abrogated on other grounds, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 , 97 S.Ct. 980 , 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977), demonstrate the applicability of the arbitrary and capricious standard to informal ageney decision making. -In Friends of the Bow, 124 F.3d at 1214-17 , the Tenth Cireuit Court of Appeals applied the arbitrary and capricious standard to review a U.S. Forest Service decision allowing a timber sale on national forest lands.