Wyoming Statutes

Wyo. Stat. § 37-2-214 (2026)

Rehearing.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WY-LEGwyoleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

At any time after an order has been made by the commission any
person interested therein may apply for a rehearing in respect
to any matter determined therein and the commission shall grant
and hold a rehearing if in its judgment sufficient reason
therefor be made to appear, which rehearing shall be subject to
rules as the commission may prescribe. Applications for
rehearing shall stay the effect of any order or decision of the
commission only as to the portion of the order addressed in the
rehearing application until the commission denies the
application or enters an order following rehearing, whichever
last occurs, provided, however, that upon the request of any
party and a showing of good cause therefor, the commission may
vacate the stay and allow the order or decision to remain in
effect. An order or decision made after the rehearing vacating,
amending or modifying the original order or decision shall not,
as to the matter considered on rehearing, be open to a further
application for rehearing, and shall have the same force and
effect as the original order or decision.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1980–2007 · leading case: Hupp v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n of Wyoming, 715 P.2d 223 (Wyo. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hupp v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n of Wyoming, 715 P.2d 223 (Wyo. 1986). · cites it 8× “" Section 37-2-214, W.S. 1977. We cannot find ESC rehearing authority in Rule 12.”

Qwest Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 2007 WY 97 (Wyo. 2007). · cites it 4× “Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-2-214 (LexisNexis 2005).”

Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Lower Valley Power & Light, Inc., 608 P.2d 660 (Wyo. 1980). · cites it 2× “Further, the PSC contended that LVPL had not exhausted its administrative remedies because it had not requested a rehearing pursuant to § 37-2-214, W.S. 1977, and that LVPL could also initiate a new rate-making proceeding if subsequent events proved that a new rate increase was…”

Vandehei Developers v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 790 P.2d 1282 (Wyo. 1990). · cites it 2× “*1285 W.S. 37-2-214 (1977) 1 provides for rehearing; however, this statute does not require that new evidence be presented.”

Utah Power & Light Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 713 P.2d 240 (Wyo. 1986). · cites it 2× “” (Emphasis added.) The newly discovered evidence upon which petitioner contended for a rehearing consisted of newspaper clippings relating to a possible expansion of the plant to require as much as 300 megawatts.”

At & T Commc'ns of the Mountain States, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 625 F. Supp. 1204 (D. Wyo. 1985). · cites it 4× “On March 25, 1985, AT&T Communications filed with the Wyoming Commission a petition for rehearing of the February 21st Order pursuant to Wyoming Statutes, Section 37-2-214. A copy of the petition is included in the Appendix as Exhibit J.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.