Wyo. R. App. P. 12.08 (2026)

Rule 12.08. Presentation of Evidence.

If, before the date set for hearing, application is made to the reviewing court for leave to present additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court the additional evidence is material, and good cause for failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency existed, the reviewing court, in contested cases, shall order the additional evidence to be taken before the agency upon those conditions determined by the reviewing court. The agency may adhere to, or modify, its findings and decision after receiving such additional evidence, and shall supplement the record to reflect the proceedings had and the decision made. Supplemental evidence may be taken by the reviewing court in cases involving fraud, or involving misconduct of some person engaged in the administration of the law affecting the decision. In all cases other than contested cases, additional material evidence may be pre- sented to the reviewing court.

Source. — Former Rule 72.1(h), W.R.C.P. Sec. Bank, 606 P.2d 296, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 234 (See notes following Rule 12.12.) (Wyo. 1980). Construction. — This rule does not permit “Material” construed. — Material evi- remand for purpose of presenting alternative dence is such evidence as is offered to help legal theories to the hearing examiner; the prove a proposition which is a matter in issue; plain language of the rule limits relief to the in this context, “material” has a more precise presentation of additional evidence, not argu- meaning than merely relevant or pertinent. ments. Bila v. Accurate Telecom, 964 P.2d 1270, Harris v. Sinclair Trucking (In re Harris), 900 1998 Wyo. LEXIS 148 (Wyo. 1998). P.2d 1163, 1995 Wyo. LEXIS 147 (Wyo. 1995). Lack of proof of “good reason” for fail- “Misconduct” defined. — “Misconduct” ure to present evidence before agency. — means mismanagement, especially of govern- See In re State Bank Charter Application of mental or military responsibilities; intentional

Rule 12.09 WYOMING COURT RULES 84

wrongdoing; deliberate violation of a rule of law district court did not abuse its discretion in or standard of behavior, especially by a govern- supplementing the administrative record pur- ment official; malfeasance; bad conduct; the suant to this rule with the federal trial testi- term implies a wrong intention and not a mere mony of witnesses who indicated that appellee error of judgment. In re State Bank Charter was traveling to meet with a property owner Application of Sec. Bank, 606 P.2d 296, 1980 about refinancing her home on the date of the Wyo. LEXIS 234 (Wyo. 1980). accident. The supplemented evidence was ma- Actions of public officer not amounting terial to the question of whether appellee expe- to “misconduct”. — See In re State Bank rienced an injury in the scope of his employ- Charter Application of Sec. Bank, 606 P.2d 296, ment with the mortgage company; because this 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 234 (Wyo. 1980). rule required additional evidence to be taken Application to present additional evi- before the agency, the trial court erred by the dence. — The application to present additional failing to remand the case to the OAH for evidence was not timely filed when it was not consideration of the supplemented evidence. presented until after the district court filed its Mullinax Concrete Serv. Co. v. Zowada, 2010 decision letter and judgment, and not before WY 146, 243 P.3d 181, 2010 Wyo. LEXIS 151 the date set for hearing, as required by this (Wyo. 2010). section. RM v. Department of Family Servs.(In Presenting evidence on hearing date re Fair Hearing Request), 953 P.2d 477, 1998 deemed untimely. — When a party moved for Wyo. LEXIS 16 (Wyo. 1998). leave to present additional evidence on the date Where dentist failed to show good cause for of the hearing, it did not move “before the date his failure to present evidence in initial pro- set for hearing.” The untimely motion pre- ceeding before the board of dental examiners, cluded the party from relying on this rule on the district court did not abuse its discretion in appeal. ANR Prod. Co. v. Wyoming Oil & Gas refusing supplementation of record. Frank v. Conservation Comm’n, 800 P.2d 492, 1990 Wyo. State by & Through the Wyoming Bd. of Dental LEXIS 128 (Wyo. 1990). Exam’rs, 965 P.2d 674, 1998 Wyo. LEXIS 143 Enough time for appropriate response (Wyo. 1998). required. — Remand to the Wyoming oil and No error in refusal to allow additional gas conservation commission was required to evidence. — In reviewing hearing examiner’s permit a drilling company to present evidence denial of worker’s compensation benefits, dis- contradicting or contesting a computer simula- trict court did not err in refusing to allow tion, where the company had not been fur- employee to present evidence of his original nished the computer simulation documentation injury or evidence of examiner’s alleged bias, and analysis at a time in advance of a sched- since employee failed to show court good cause uled hearing so that appropriate technical con- why he did not present evidence in hearing, and sideration for response could be prepared and materiality of additional evidence was not dem- given. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. v. onstrated. Shryack v. Carr Constr. Co. (In re Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Comm’n, 809 Worker’s Compensation Claim of Shryack), 3 P.2d 775, 1991 Wyo. LEXIS 55 (Wyo. 1991). P.3d 850, 2000 Wyo. LEXIS 86 (Wyo. 2000). Law reviews. — For article, “Administra- Supplementation of record with mate- tive Law, Wyoming Style,” see XVIII Land & rial evidence. — After the Office of Adminis- Water L. Rev. 223 (1983). trative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of For comment, “Education for Handicapped worker’s compensation benefits, a jury sitting Children in Wyoming: What Constitutes a Free in federal court found that appellee injured Appropriate Public Education and Other Ad- worker was acting within the scope of his ministrative Hurdles,” see XIX Land & Water employment at the time of the car accident; the L. Rev. 225 (1984).