Summary 2014 WY 37

Summary of Decision March 12, 2014

Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. Reversed and remanded.

Case Name: POWDER RIVER BASIN RESOURCE COUNCIL, WYOMING OUTDOOR COUNCIL, EARTHWORKS, and CENTER FOR EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT (formerly OMB WATCH), Appellants (Petitioners), v. WYOMING OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Appellee (Respondent), and HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Appellee (Intervenor).

Docket Number: S-13-0120

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Catherine E. Wilking, Judge

Representing Appellants: Timothy J. Preso and Laura D. Beaton of Earthjustice, Bozeman, Montana; Shannon Anderson, Sheridan, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Preso.

Representing Appellee Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: Peter K. Michael, Interim Attorney General; Eric A. Easton, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Easton.

Representing Appellee Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.: Steven L. Leifer of Baker Botts L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; John A. Masterson and Alaina M. Stedillie of Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Leifer.

Date of Decision: March 12, 2014

Facts: Appellants Powder River Basin Resource Council, Wyoming Outdoor Council, Earthworks, and Center for Effective Government appeal from a district court order affirming the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Supervisor’s denial of a public records request.

Issue: Whether the Supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission acted arbitrarily and unlawfully in denying Appellants’ request for public records documenting the identities of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations in the state.

Holdings/Conclusion: We hold that Appellants were required to follow the procedures set forth in the WPRA, which they did not do. The WPRA requires the district court to independently determine whether information must be disclosed or not, rather than to review a decision of the Supervisor as an administrative decision.
This appeal also raises the question of how trade secrets are defined under the WPRA, a question that can be answered as a matter of law on this record, and one we find to be appropriate to address in the interest of judicial economy. We decide that the Supervisor and the courts should apply the definition developed in federal case law under the Freedom of Information Act. We decline to determine whether individual chemical ingredients can be trade secrets because that is not solely a question of law and it cannot be decided on the record before us. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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 quotation, 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.]

Summary 2014 WY 7

Summary of Decision January 16, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DARRYL WADSWORTH v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER TWO

Docket Number: S-13 0029

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

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

Representing Appellant: Erin M. Kendall and Patrick E. Hacker of Hacker, Hacker & Kendall, P.C., Cheyenne, WY. Argument by Mr. Hacker.

Representing Appellee: Dennis W. Lancaster of Lancaster Law Offices, P.C., Afton, WY.

Date of Decision: January 16, 2014

Facts: Lincoln County School District Number Two (the District) notified Darryl Wadsworth, a continuing contract teacher in the District, that his contract was to be terminated on grounds of insubordination, incompetence, and poor work performance. Wadsworth requested a hearing before an independent hearing officer, and following that hearing, the Board of Trustees of Lincoln County School District (the Board) issued an order accepting the hearing officer’s recommendation and conclusion that good cause existed for the termination of Wadsworth’s teaching contract. On appeal, Wadsworth contends that the Board’s order was entered in violation of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Wadsworth’s due process rights because some members of the Board did not attend the entire hearing or otherwise review all of the evidence submitted to the hearing officer.

Issues: 1) Does it violate the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for the Lincoln County School District Number 2 Board of Trustees to fail to review all the evidence before making its decision in the termination hearing of Darryl Wadsworth? 2) Does it violate due process for the Lincoln County School District Number 2 Board of Trustees to fail to review all the evidence before making its decision in the termination hearing of Darryl Wadsworth? 3) Is the decision of the Board invalid because members of the board failed to review the complete record of the hearing, as required by Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-107(k)? 4) Did the district court err in concluding that violations of due process and the APA were not prejudicial to [Wadsworth]?

Holdings/Conclusion: The Board did not violate the Wyoming APA or Wadsworth’s due process rights by accepting the hearing officer’s recommended decision without independently reviewing the entire evidentiary record received by the hearing officer. Affirmed.


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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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 quotation, 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.]

Summary 2010 WY 2

Summary of Decision issued January 8, 2010

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

Case Name: Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. Bldg. Code Bd. of Appeals, Cheyenne

Citation: 2010 WY 2

Docket Number: S-09-0103

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge.

Representing Appellant Newspaper: Bruce T. Moats of Law Office of Bruce T. Moats, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Bldg. Board: Kate M. Fox of Davis & Cannon, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Facts/Discussion: The Newspaper appealed from a summary judgment granted by the district court in favor of the Board declaring that certain Board action did not violate the Wyoming Public Meetings Act and that such action therefore was not null and void.
Quasi-judicial deliberations under WAPA subject to the Wyoming Public Meetings Act: All meetings of the governing body of an agency are public meetings. The Board was created by an ordinance of the City of Cheyenne which is a municipality. The Board is the group having ultimate control over its decisions, not the city council. Therefore, the “governing body” is the board itself. The Board met to discuss and deliberate the appeal from the action of the City’s Historic Preservation Board. Quasi-judicial deliberations after a WAPA contested case hearing may not be closed to the public. Section 16-4-403(a) mandates that all meetings of the governing body of an agency are public meetings except for executive sessions as described in § 16-4-405. The Act intends that an agency’s deliberations occur during a public meeting.
Action of the Board null and void: The Court noted the facts in the instant case were similar to those in Mayland v. Flitner where the commissioners entered into executive session in violation of the Act but took action later at an appropriately called public meeting. In the instant case, although § 16-4-403(a) was violated when the private meeting took place, the second sentence was not violated because the agency’s action took place at a public meeting. Therefore, the action was not null and void.

Conclusion: The Board violated the statute by deliberating at a closed meeting, but the agency action took place at a public meeting, so that agency action was not null and void. The Court reversed the conclusion of the district court that the Act does not apply to quasi-judicial deliberations of an agency after a WAPA contested case hearing, but the Court affirmed the conclusion of the district court that the Board took no action that must be declared null and void.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

J. Kite concurring, joined by J. Hill: The Justices agreed that the Board was a governing body covered by the Act and its meeting in executive session was illegal. The legislature has stated in clear and unequivocal language that agencies are prohibited from deliberating behind closed doors. For some reason, the Board concluded it was exempt from these requirements and went so far as to adopt regulations which purported to provide it with authority to ignore the statute and hold executive sessions whenever it chose. The Board also ignored the city attorney’s request that it conduct its deliberations in public. In the face of that direct defiance of the law, injunctive relief may have been appropriate.
J. Burke concurring in part and dissenting in part: J. Burke agreed with the majority that an agency’s deliberations after a contested case hearing are subject to the requirements of the Wyoming Public Meetings Act and that the Board violated the Act when it deliberated at a closed meeting. However, he concluded that the record was insufficient to support a finding that the board took no action during the meeting. He would therefore have reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings to resolve that genuine issue of material fact.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/y8gy9bo .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

2008 WY 88

Summary of Decision issued July 29, 2008

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

Case Name: Northfork Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. Park County Bd. of County Commr.

Citation: 2008 WY 88

Docket Number: S-07-0258

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, the Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge.

Representing Appellants: Anthony Todd Wendtland and Debra J. Wendtland, Wendtland & Wendtland, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee, Park County Bd. of County Commr.: Bryan A. Skoric, County Attorney and James F. Davis, Deputy County Attorney, Park County Attorney’s Office, Cody, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee, Worthington Group of Wyoming, LLC: Dawn Rae Scott and Laurence W. Stinson, Bonner Stinson, PC, Powell, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: In a series of administrative decisions, the Park County Commissioners approved plans by Worthington Group of Citizens, LLC to develop a residential subdivision known as Copperleaf. Northfork Citizens for Responsible Development, David Jamison and Robert Hoszwa sought judicial review. Jamison and Hoszwa own and live on property adjoining Copperleaf adjacent to the area where Worthington proposes to develop duplexes.
Standing under the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act has been explained as including one who has a legally recognizable interest in that which will be affected by the action. A potential litigant must show injury or potential injury by alleging a perceptible harm resulting from the agency action. The lesson of the decisions in Hoke and Hirschfield was that adjoining landowners have standing to appeal land use decisions that result in a substantial increase in the allowed housing density. If Jamison and Hoszwa are correct in their assertion that the County’s 1985 approval of duplex development has expired, then the County’s decisions approving Copperleaf will result in a substantial increase in housing density.

Holding: Because Jamison and Hoszwa have established standing in the case, Northfork also has standing. Accordingly, the Court found error in the district court’s order dismissing their appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/56dvy2 .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]