Title: WYOMING BOARD OF OUTFITTERS AND PROFESSIONAL GUIDES v. CLARK

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

WYOMING BOARD OF OUTFITTERS AND PROFESSIONAL GUIDES v. CLARK2002 WY 2439 P.3d 1106Case Number: 01-99Decided: 02/12/2002

October Term, A.D. 2001

 

 

WYOMING 
BOARD OF OUTFITTERS

AND 
PROFESSIONAL GUIDES, 

Appellant(Respondent) 
,

 

v.

 

REED 
CLARK, 

Appellee(Petitioner) 
.

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Lincoln County:

The 
Honorable John D. Troughton, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Hoke 
MacMillan, Attorney General; Michael Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; Eugene W. 
Jackson, Assistant Attorney General; and Angela Dougherty, Assistant Attorney 
General.  Argument by Ms. 
Dougherty.

 Representing 
Appellee:

James 
E. Phillips of James E. Phillips, P.C., Evanston, WY.  Argument by Mr. 
Phillips.

 

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

  

LEHMAN, 
Chief Justice. 

[¶1]      Appellant, 
the Wyoming Board of Outfitters and Professional Guides (Board), chal­lenges 
an order of the district court reversing the Board's decision to deny a 1999 
guide license to appellee, Reed Clark.  
Upon review, we dismiss this matter as we find it to be 
moot.

 

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      The Board offers 
this statement of the issues:

 

I.  Whether 
the Board was correct in denying Clark's application for a professional guide's 
license.

 

II.  Whether 
the Board denied Clark his right to due process.

 

III.  Whether 
the Board had to demonstrate that Clark breached the terms of his conditional 
license.

 

Clark 
states only a single issue on appeal as follows:

 

A.  Did 
the district court correctly rule that the Appellant's deci­sion to deny 
Appellee a professional guide's license was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 
discretion, and contrary to law.

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]      Clark has been 
involved in the outfitting and professional guide business in Wyoming since 
approximately 1984.  During 1995, 
Clark's license to operate an outfitters business was revoked as a result of his 
conviction of a Lacey Act violation.  
Subsequently, in 1998, Clark applied for, and was conditionally granted, 
a professional guide license.  
Specifically, Clark agreed that he would only guide for Board approved 
outfitters and that should he be con­victed of a crime within the following 
three-year period, he would voluntarily relinquish his guide license and waive 
any right to appeal or any hearing procedure.

 

[¶4]      In October of 
1998, Game Warden Duane Hyde received reports from citizens that Clark was 
guiding hunters into Wyoming from his residence just across the Idaho state 
line.  Acting upon such reports, 
Hyde went to the area in question on October 20, 1998, and even­tually made 
contact with Clark's group.  Hyde 
checked the licenses of the two hunters with Clark and noted that neither hunter 
was wearing hunter orange as required.  
One of the hunt­ers produced a hunter orange hat from his coat pocket 
and put it on, while the other hunter indicated that she had left a hunter 
orange item back on her horse.  
However, upon follow-up, this hunter had only a red and black plaid 
machinaw-type jacket.  Hyde also 
checked Clark's guide license and found that the license had not been properly 
endorsed by the out­fitter to whom Clark was purportedly contracted.1  Hyde then confiscated Clark's 
license.

 

[¶5]      Hyde additionally 
discussed the matter of Clark not having his license endorsed with Leonard 
Hysell, investigator for the Board.  
Hysell issued Clark a citation for this failure.  A citation was also issued via mail to 
the hunter with Clark on October 20, 1998, not wear­ing hunter orange while 
hunting.

 

[¶6]      On February 10, 
1999, Clark applied for a 1999 guide license.  After denial by the Board during its 
June 18, 1999 meeting, Clark then requested a hearing to challenge this 
determination.  A contested case 
hearing was held on December 9, 1999, and the Board again denied Clark's 
application.  Clark filed a petition 
for review in the district court, which, on April 12, 2001, entered an order 
reversing the Board's decision.  
This appeal followed.

 

 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[¶7]      The standard of 
review for judicial review of agency action is set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2001):

 

(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.

 

Board of 
Outfitters & Professional Guides v. 
Clark, 2001 WY 78, ¶10, 30 P.3d 36, ¶10 (Wyo. 2001) (citing Dorr v. 
Board of Certified Public Accountants, 2001 WY 37, ¶8, 21 P.3d 735, ¶8 (Wyo. 
2001)).  See also Billings 
v. Board of Outfitters & Guides, 2001 WY 81, ¶10, 30 P.3d 557, ¶10 (Wyo. 
2001).

 

[¶8]      We must also 
defer to an agency's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial 
evidence.  Substantial evidence is 
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind can accept as adequate to support an 
agency's conclusion.  Wyoming 
Board of Outfitters v. Clark, ¶24 (citing Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. 
Dep't of Rev., 2001 WY 34, ¶8, 20 P.3d 528, ¶8 (Wyo. 
2001)).

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Mootness

 

[¶9]      We stated in the 
case of Smith Keller & Associates v. Dorr, 4 P.3d 872, 876 (Wyo. 
2000) (citing Bard Ranch Co. v. Frederick, 950 P.2d 564, 566 (Wyo. 
1997)):

 

Our 
general law on justiciability provides that courts should not consider issues 
which have become moot.  Gulf Oil 
Corp. v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Comm'n, 693 P.2d 227, 233 
(Wyo. 1985).  We do not decide cases 
when a decision will have no effect or pertains only to matters that might arise 
in the future.  McLain v. 
Anderson, 933 P.2d 468, 472 (Wyo. 1997).  A case is moot when the determination of 
an issue is sought which, if provided, will have no practical effect on the 
existing controversy.  
Id.  Therefore, if 
events occur during the pendency of an appeal that cause a case to become moot 
or make determi­nation of the issues unnecessary, we will dismiss it.  Id.; see also Rocky Mountain 
Helicopters, Inc. v. Air Freight, Inc., 773 P.2d 911, 924-25 (Wyo. 
1989).

 

In 
Sanchez v. State, 982 P.2d 149, 150 (Wyo. 1999), we further elaborated 
that a case is moot when the matter upon which a determination is sought 
presents no actual controversy or when a decision can have no practical 
effect.  We have also recognized the 
general rule that the issue of mootness constitutes a question of law and may be 
properly addressed by a court sua sponte.  Cooper v. Town of Pinedale, 1 P.3d 1197, 1201 (Wyo. 2000) (citing, in part, Fund for Animals v. 
Babbitt, 89 F.3d 128, 132 (2ndCir. 1996)); 
see also Northern Utilities, Inc. v. Public Service Comm'n, 617 P.2d 1079, 1085 (Wyo. 1980).

 

[¶10]   In this case, the Board asserts 
that it simply denied the 1999 application for licensure of Clark as a 
guide.  Clark, in contrast, claims 
that the Board revoked a conditional existing license that had been issued to 
Clark.  Indeed, as  foundation for its decision, the lower 
court ruled in favor of the position asserted by Clark.  However, we do not 
agree.

 

[¶11]   The Board granted Clark a 
conditional 1998 license conditioned upon Clark's agree­ment that he would 
only guide for Board approved outfitters and that should he be convicted of a 
crime within the following three-year period, he would voluntarily relinquish 
his guide license and waive any right to appeal or hearing procedure.  Hence, the granting of that 1998 license 
cannot be construed as the Board granting Clark a three-year conditional 
license.  

 

[¶12]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 23-2-414(b) 
(LexisNexis 2001) provides:

 

A 
license issued under this act is valid for the calendar year in which issued and 
shall expire on December 31 of that year unless earlier expiring pursuant to 
W.S. 23-2-412(b) or other­wise suspended or revoked. 

 

As we 
recently enunciated in Billings, ¶24:

 

It is 
well established that:

 

An 
administrative agency is limited in authority to powers leg­islatively 
delegated.  "Administrative agencies 
are creatures of statute and their power is dependent upon statutes, so that 
they must find within the statute warrant for the exercise of any authority 
which they claim."  Amoco 
Production Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 12 P.3d 668, 673 (Wyo. 2000) 
(citations omitted).  "An agency is 
wholly without power to modify, dilute or change in any way the statutory 
provisions from which it derives its authority."  Platte Development Co. v. State, 
Envi­ronmental Quality Council, 966 P.2d 972, 975 (Wyo. 1998).  Thus administrative agencies are bound 
to comply with their enabling statutes.  
Sears v. Romer, 928 P.2d 745, 751 (Colo.App. 1996).  

 

[¶13]   Accordingly, the Board is expressly 
limited to granting a guide license for a period of no more than a one-year 
period ending on December 31 of the applicable year unless it expires earlier by 
its limited conditions or is suspended or revoked at an earlier date.  The Board is expressly prohibited from 
granting Clark a three-year conditional license even if it desired to do 
so.

 

[¶14]   Moreover, this conclusion is 
supported by the fact that Clark made his application for a 1999 license with 
the Board which is the very subject of this appeal.  Clearly, Clark under­stood that he 
was required to make a yearly request for a guide license from the Board but 
that conditions to the issuance of such license, if it were granted by the Board 
over a three-year period beginning in 1998, would be that he agree that he would 
only guide for Board approved outfitters and that should he be convicted of a 
crime within these years, he would voluntarily relinquish his guide license and 
waive any right to appeal or hearing procedure.2

 

[¶15]   Any determination by this court 
relating to the bases upon which the Board denied the 1999 license is moot in 
that it would be wholly ineffectual and of no practical effect.  Indeed, if this court were to rule that 
Clark should not have been denied his 1999 guide license, this determination 
would be completely inconsequential as the issuance of this license 
approxi­mately two years after the 1999 year has ended would be of no 
practical value to Clark.  
Similarly, if this court were to uphold the Board's action in denying 
Clark his 1999 guide license and reverse the ruling made by the district court, 
such would be equally of no worth at this late date.

 

[¶16]   However, this court by way of 
direction must reiterate its determination expressed recently in the case of 
Board of Outfitters & Professional Guides v. Clark, 2002 WY 78.  We do not agree with the district 
court's conclusion that the Board is so hobbled by statute that it must issue a 
guide license so long as the applicant is 18 years old and employed by a 
licensed outfitter, without regard for any facts or circumstances including the 
applicant's history of performance under licenses issued by the Board.  Upon exploration of the lan­guage 
con­tained within all the statutes pertaining to the purposes and powers of 
the Board with respect to issuing licenses, we emphasize that the Board is 
empowered to consider the applicant's past history to ensure that the applicant 
possesses the necessary qualifications to ensure com­pliance with those 
requirements and obligations expressed by applicable state statute and those 
rules and regulations properly promulgated by the Board in making its 
determination to grant, deny, or limit the issuance of a 
license.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

[¶17]   For those reasons stated above, 
this matter is determined to be moot.  
Accordingly, this matter is dismissed. 

 

FOOTNOTES

  1At the contested case hearing later 
held in this matter, Clark admitted through his own testimony that he was 
required to obtain the signature of his outfitter and brother, Dale Clark, on 
his license but that he failed to do so as of October 20, 1998.  Clark also admitted that he had failed 
to obtain the signature of another outfitter, George Harold, as required 
concerning another license that had been issued to him by the 
Board.

  2This conclusion is further supported 
by the case caption of this action used by the Board which clearly specifies 
that it involved the matter of the application of Clark for a 1999 guide 
license.  The notice given to Clark 
by the Board as to the bases for its denial of the 1999 application which 
prompted this case is also so limited.