Summary 2011 WY 23

Summary of Decision February 10, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter 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: State of Wyoming, Department of Transportation v. Robbins

Citation: 2011 WY 23

Docket Number: S-10-0048

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461743

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Michael T. Kahler.

Representing Appellee (Complainant): Mike Cornia, Evanston, Wyoming.


Date of Decision: February 10, 2011

Issues: Whether the district court erred in finding that “clear and convincing evidence” rather than a “preponderance of the evidence,” is required to uphold a commercial driver’s license disqualification in a contested case proceeding and in finding that Appellee’s constitutional right to due process was violated.


Holdings: The Wyoming statutes make clear that driving is not a fundamental right, but a privilege. A license revocation hearing is civil in nature and the probable cause must only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. It does not rise to the level necessitating a clear and convincing evidence burden of proof.

Because the district court’s decision that due process requires a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings to disqualify a commercial driver is reversed, the district court was also erroneous in determining that the statute, as applied, denied Appellant his due process rights to the clear and convincing evidence standard.

Reversed.


J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.