Case Title: In re Conflicting Lease Application for Wyoming Agr. Lease No. 1-7027

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1999-01-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Conflicting Lease Application for Wyoming Agr. Lease No. 1-70271999 WY 10972 P.2d 586Case Number: 98-250Decided: 01/29/1999Supreme Court of Wyoming

In the 
Matter of CONFLICTING LEASE APPLICATIONS FOR WYOMING AGRICULTURAL

 

LEASE NO. 1-7027:

 

William H. Riedel, Appellant 
(Petitioner),

v.

Craig C. Anderson and Gail M. Anderson, Appellees 
(Respondents).

 

                                

          
                ORDER 
OF DISMISSAL

 

     PER 
CURIAM.

    [¶1]  This case came on before the Court upon 
its own motion to consider whether it should be dismissed for failure to present 
a justiciable issue for review, and the Court, having reviewed the files and 
records of the Court and being fully advised in the premises, finds and 
concludes that:

 

            1.  The Petition for Review, filed in the 
district court, presents one of the specific issues of law addressed to the district court for review in 
this way:

 

                        
7. The issues of law addressed to the Court are:

 

                        
a. Whether the preferential right of renewal under W.S. 36-5-105 is 
unconstitutional and in violation 
of Wyoming's fiduciary trust obligation to maximize revenues from state 
lands in order to support its 
common schools, as that fiduciary obligation is imposed by federal 
law and the Wyoming Constitution; 
to wit, Wyoming's enabling Act, Sections 4 and 5 of 26 Statutes 
at large 22, Ch. 664, 10 July 1890; 
Supremacy Clause of the United states Constitution; Wyoming Constitution: Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 6 and 
34; Article 13, Section 27; Article 7, Sections 2; and Article 18, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 
5.

 

            2.  This issue was not, and it could not be, 
raised before the Board of Land Commissioners.  Belco Petroleum Corp. v. State Bd. Of Equalization, 
587 P.2d 204, 214 (Wyo. 1978).

 

            3.  The authority of the district court, and 
this court upon certification of a cause pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09, is limited to the issues set forth 
in the petition and raised before the agency, as well as by the provisions of 
WYO. STAT. § 16-3-114(c).

 

            4.  WYO. STAT. § 16-3-114(c) 
provides:

 

                        
(c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the 
reviewing court shall decide all 
relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory 
provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an 
agency action.  In making the 
following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts 
of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial 
error. The reviewing court shall:

 

         
               
            
(i) Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; 
and

 

         
                           
(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;

 

         
                           
(B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or 
immunity;

 

         
                           
(C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or 
lacking statutory right;

 

         
                           
(D) Without observance of procedure required by law; 
or

 

         
                           
(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record 
of an agency hearing provided by 
statute. (Emphasis added.)

 

            5.  In Belco Petroleum Corp. v. State Bd. Of 
Equalization, 587 P.2d 204, 214 (Wyo. 1978), we said:

 

We hold that an administrative agency has no 
authority to determine the constitutionality of a statute. (Citations omitted.) 
This is so whether the question is the constitutionality of the statute per se 
or the constitutionality of the statute as applied.

 

6. Even though an administrative agency has no 
authority to determine the constitutionality of a statute, and, therefore, the 
issue upon which review is sought could not be raised before the Board of Land 
Commissioners, the scope of review before the district court is not expanded by 
either the statute or the rule.

 

7.  The 
statute specifically alludes to constitutional issues and affords to the court 
authority to "interpret constitutional and statutory provisions" and to "hold 
unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and           conclusions found to be * * * 
contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity * * 
*."

 

8. Neither the statute nor the rule affords the 
district court or this court authority on review of an agency decision to hold a 
statute unconstitutional vel non.

 

            9.  The only issue asserted in the Brief of 
Appellant in this case is:

 

Whether the preferential right of renewal under W.S. 
36-5-105 is unconstitutional and in violation of Wyoming's fiduciary trust 
obligation to maximize revenues from state lands in order to support its common 
schools, as that fiduciary obligation is imposed by federal law and the Wyoming 
Constitution; to wit, Wyoming's enabling Act, Sections 4 and 5 of 26 Statutes at 
large 22, Ch. 664, 10 July 1890; Supremacy Clause of the United states 
Constitution; Wyoming Constitution: Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 6 and 34; Article 13, Section 27; Article 7, Sections 
2; and Article 18, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

 

10. The appropriate course for an aggrieved party to 
pursue when a statute that affords authority to an agency is deemed to be 
unconstitutional is found in and preserved by the provisions of W.R.A.P. 
12.12:

 

The relief, review, or redress available in suits for 
injunction against agency action or enforcement, in actions for recovery of 
money, in actions for a declaratory judgment based on agency action or 
inaction, in actions seeking any common law writ to compel, review or 
restrain agency action shall be available by independent action notwithstanding 
any petition for review. (Emphasis added.)

 

11. This Court is without authority to address the 
single issue claimed by the Petitioners in their Petition for Review and their 
Brief of Appellant.

 

   [¶2]     IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this case 
be, and the same hereby is, dismissed, and it is remanded to the District Court 
for any further proceedings that may be deemed appropriate in light of this 
Order of Dismissal.