Summary 2005 WY 144

Summary of Decision issued November 18, 2005

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Holloway v. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission

Citation: 2005 WY 144

Docket Number: 05-52

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, Honorable Nena James, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Cleveland Holloway, pro se.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Jay Jerde, Deputy Attorney General; and Thomas W. Rumpke, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: November 18, 2005

Issues: Whether the decision of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission to deny Cleveland Holloway’s request for a refund of his bighorn sheep license fee and to restore his preference points arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Holdings: Both Appellant and Appellee presented evidence before the Commission, therefore the Court’s review was limited to an examination of the entire record to determine whether there was substantial evidence to support the agency’s findings. Chapter 44, § 22(e) of the Commission’s rules and regulations sets out the procedure and requirements for obtaining a license fee refund and restoration of preference points. The Court reviewed the evidence and concluded that substantial evidence supported the determination that Appellant failed to timely file his request as provided in the regulation. That failure alone provided an adequate basis for denying his request.

The decision was affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.