Wyo. R. App. P. 12.01 (2026)

Rule 12.01. Generally. To the extent judicial review of administrative action by a district court is available, any person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by a final decision of an agency in a contested case, or who is aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by any other agency action or inaction, or who is adversely affected in fact by a rule adopted by that agency, may obtain such review as provided in this rule. All appeals from administrative agencies shall be governed by these rules.

Source. — Former Rule 72.1(a), W.R.C.P. which is subject to judicial review. — Stag- (See notes following Rule 12.12.) ner v. Wyoming State Tax Comm’n, 642 P.2d Letter from state agency not final 1296, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 322 (Wyo. 1982). agency action. — Letter from state agency As is administrative adjudication of wa- advising an employee that it was denying his ter right. — An appeal from a part of an order petition for a grievance committee to consider of the board of control which adjudicated a his request for a salary increase did not consti- water right was an appeal of an “administra- tute a final agency action within the meaning of tive action.” In re Declaration of Abandonment Wyo. R. App. P. 12.01 and 12.04 because the of Wolfley Appropriation, 695 P.2d 159, 1985 state personnel rules did not indicate that such Wyo. LEXIS 444 (Wyo. 1985). a letter could constitute a final decision on a As is tax commission’s refusal to rein- request for a salary increase. Douglass v. Wyo. state driving license. — Following the sus- DOT, 2008 WY 77, 187 P.3d 850, 2008 Wyo. pension of a driving license, the driver did not LEXIS 80 (Wyo. 2008). appeal the suspension order, but later made a Email from supervisor not final agency reinstatement request to the motor vehicle di- action. — E-mail from supervisor addressing vision, which was referred to the attorney gen- employee’s grievance indicating that the state eral’s office, which denied the request. The agency had determined that the employee was driver then attempted to appeal to the tax not entitled to a salary increase but also indi- commission, which refused to act. This consti- cating that the supervisor would continue to tuted the “other agency action or inaction” look into the matter did not constitute a final specified in § 16-3-114(a) and in this rule, and agency action within the meaning of Wyo. R. the district court had jurisdiction over a peti- App. P. 12.01 and 12.04. Douglass v. Wyo. DOT, tion to review filed within 30 days of the tax 2008 WY 77, 187 P.3d 850, 2008 Wyo. LEXIS 80 commission’s letter of refusal. State v. Kraus, (Wyo. 2008). 706 P.2d 1130, 1985 Wyo. LEXIS 573 (Wyo. Seizure of cigarettes is agency action 1985).

Rule 12.02 WYOMING COURT RULES 78

Aggrieved or adversely affected. — Court Applicability of other rules. — District dismissed one of the taxpayer’s consolidated court’s dismissal of an appeal from an admin- appeals of the ad valorem personal property tax istrative ruling denying unemployment ben- assessments on its coal mines for lack of juris- efits could not be challenged through a motion diction because that the State Board of Equal- for relief under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60, even if ization had remanded the case to the County considered as an application for rehearing un- Board of Equalization; therefore the taxpayer der Wyo. R. App. P. 9.07 or a petition for was the prevailing party and was not adversely reinstatement under Wyo. R. App. P. 15. The affected or “aggrieved” as provided under this above rules did not apply, in light of the absence rule. Even if the taxpayer’s appeal from the of anything in this rule and the scope of the civil State Board of Equalization to the district court was authorized, the district court’s order re- rules as defined in Wyo. R. Civ. P. 1 to indicate manding the matter to the County Board was that other civil or appellate rules might extend not appealable under Wyo. R. App. P. 1.05 to agency appeals. Libretti v. State (In re because it did not finally conclude the matter. United States Currency Totaling $7,209.00), Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Campbell County, 2012 WY 75, 278 P.3d 234, 2012 Wyo. LEXIS 79 2006 WY 44, 132 P.3d 801, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 47 (Wyo. 2012). (Wyo. 2006). Attorney fees denied. — Attorney fees Petition for mandamus improper. — were denied where attorney did not provide Where attorney filed his petition for mandamus argument or authority as to why he should be almost 90 days after client requested a hearing entitled to attorney’s fees, he did not comply and no response from the division was received, with the workers’ compensation statutes, and the amount of time was “reasonable”; however, his appeal violated numerous rules of appellate the appropriate remedy was to file a petition for procedure. Harris v. Schuetz, 948 P.2d 907, review of agency inaction, and where there was 1997 Wyo. LEXIS 147 (Wyo. 1997). an adequate remedy at law, an action for man- Trial court engaged in proper review. — damus was improper. Harris v. Schuetz, 948 In an unemployment compensation matter, the P.2d 907, 1997 Wyo. LEXIS 147 (Wyo. 1997). employee’s argument that the trial court erro- Public service commission’s order re- neously reviewed the Wyoming Department of taining matter of refunds for further ac- Employment, Unemployment Insurance Com- tion was not a final decision for purposes of mission’s decision on appeal instead of a hear- judicial review, where the language of the order ing examiner’s decision was contrary to the indicated that the commission was unsure rule; the trial court was not at liberty to review whether a refund would be necessary. MGTC, the decision made by the hearing examiner. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 735 P.2d 103, 1987 Koch v. Dep’t of Empl., 2013 WY 12, 294 P.3d Wyo. LEXIS 433 (Wyo. 1987). 888, 2013 Wyo. LEXIS 15 (Wyo. 2013).