Pino v. State2/17/2000
th the burden of proof has failed to meet that burden, the case is reviewed under the A rbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law@ language of Wyo. Stat. ' 16-3-114(c)(ii) (1990). City of Casper v. Utech, 895 P.2d 449, 452 (Wyo.1995). On appeal the complainant, Pederson in this instance, has the burden of proving arbitrary administrative action. Knight v. Environmental Quality Council of State of Wyo., 805 P.2d 268 (Wyo.1991); Wyoming Bancorporation v. Bonham, 527 P.2d 432, 439 (Wyo.1974); Marathon Oil Co. v. Welch, 379 P.2d 832, 836 (Wyo.1963); Whitesides v. Council of City of Cheyenne, 78 Wyo. 80, 319 P.2d 520, 526 (1957). The agency, as the trier of fact, is charged with weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of witnesses. Utech, 895 P.2d at 451, and cases there cited. The deference normally accorded to the findings of fact by a trial court is extended to the administrative agency, and the agency=s decision as to the facts will not be overturned unless it is clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Wyoming Steel & Fab, Inc. v. Robles, 882 P.2d 873, 875 (Wyo.1994). Demonstrating evidentiary contradictions in the record does not establish the irrationality of the ruling, but we do examine conflicting evidence to determine if the agency reasonably could have made its finding and order based upon all of the evidence before it. Matter of Corman, 909 P.2d 966, 971 (Wyo.1996); Knight, 805 P.2d at 274; Ward v. Board of Trustees of Goshen County School Dist. No. 1, 865 P.2d 618, 623 (Wyo.1993); State ex rel. Wyoming Workers= Compensation Div. v. Ramsey, 839 P.2d 936, 941 (Wyo.1992).
The articulated review approach is consistent with Wyo. Stat. Ann. ' 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) and (E) (Lexis 1999), which provides that the reviewing court must:
(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.
When an abuse of discretion is the issue on review, the reviewing court examines the question of whether the agency=s Adecision was based on a consideration of relevant factors and whether it is rational.@ Matter of Corman, 909 P.2d 966, 971 (Wyo. 1996). The failure of any essential finding to be supported by substantial evidence results in an arbitrary and capricious decision and must be reversed. Matter of Goddard, 914 P.2d 1233, 1236 (Wyo. 1996) (quoting Majority of Working Interest Owners in Buck Draw Field Area v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Com=n, 721 P.2d 1070, 1079 (Wyo. 1986)). Our definition of substantial evidence is A>relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the conclusions of the agency.=@ State ex rel. Wyoming Workers= Compensation Div. v. Harris, 931 P.2d 255, 258 (Wyo. 1997) (quoting Stuckey v. State, ext rel. Wyoming Workers= Compensation Div., 890 P.2d 1097, 1099 (Wyo. 1995)). When there is substantial evidence present to support the agency=s finding of fact, we do not substitute our judgment for the agency finding. Wyoming Steel & Fab, Inc. v. Robles, 882 P.2d 873, 876 (Wyo. 1994) (quoting Sinclair Trucking v. Bailey, 848 P.2d 1349, 1351 (Wyo. 1993)). The reviewing court, however, may adjust the findings of fact when they are clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Weaver v. Cost Cutters, 953 P.2d 851, 855 (Wyo. 1998) (citing Nelson v. Sheridan Manor, 939 P.2d 252, 255 (Wyo. 1997)).
The decision of the agency will only be affirmed, however, if it is in accordance with t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|