Title: State ex rel. Reece v. Wyoming State Bd. of Outfitters and Professional Guides

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

State ex rel. Reece v. Wyoming State Bd. of Outfitters and Professional Guides1997 WY 19931 P.2d 958Case Number: 96-36Decided: 01/31/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

STATE 
of Wyoming, ex rel. Ronald G. REECE, Licensed

Outfitter, Appellant 
(Petitioner),

v.

WYOMING STATE BOARD OF OUTFITTERS AND PROFESSIONAL 
GUIDES, Appellee (Respondent).

 

Appeal from District Court, Sublette County, D. Terry 
Rogers, J.

 

Andrew L. Breffeilh 
(argued), Jackson, for Appellant.

 William U. Hill, Attorney General; Michael L. 
Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; and John S. Burbridge, Assistant Attorney 
General (argued), for Appellee.

 

Before TAYLOR, C.J., and 
THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.

 

LEHMAN, Justice.

 [¶1]      Appellant Ronald 
Reece, doing business as Piney Creek Outfitters, seeks reinstatement of his 
outfitters license earlier revoked by the Wyoming State Board of Outfitters and 
Professional Guides. Appellant's brief fails to comply with rules of appellate 
procedure and is void of cogent argument or legal authority, thus depriving him 
of his requested relief.

 

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

 

[¶3]      A Petition for 
Review to the district court, sounding issues of constitutional and 
jurisdictional magnitude, led to a certification to this court to consider 
questions of statewide impact. While passing reference, unsupported by 
authority, is made in appellant's brief to constitutional violations, appellant 
argues only of erroneous conclusions of law drawn by the Board and the Board's 
lack of observance of procedure.

 

[¶4]      Appellant's 
statement of the case reveals only argument and hyperbole as well as a forum to 
raise new issues on appeal, in violation of W.R.A.P. 7.01(e). Within the 
argument portion, only one citation to legal authority is provided, which 
correctly states that an agency action must be set aside if it is not supported 
by sufficient factual findings in the record. Majority of Working Interest 
Owners in Buck Draw Field Area v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, 721 P.2d 1070, 1078 (Wyo. 1986). The remainder of the argument includes conclusions 
without supporting reasoning and a total lack of pertinent 
authority.

 

[¶5]      The only other 
reference to authority within appellant's argument is the quote attributed to 
Yogi Berra stating: "This is deja vu all over again." This quotation finds 
utility in this opinion because "[f]or more than thirty-five years, this Court 
has summarily affirmed cases or issues in cases that are not presented with 
cogent argument or pertinent authority." Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 891 P.2d 85, 87 
(Wyo. 1995). See also, Earlywine v. Peterson, 885 P.2d 861, 864 (Wyo. 1994) and 
State, Game and Fish Comm'n v. Thornock, 851 P.2d 1300, 1304 (Wyo. 1993). Based 
upon the failure of appellant to comply with the provisions of W.R.A.P. 7.01, we 
summarily affirm this case. "The sanction of affirmance for failure to comply 
with our rules is specifically provided in W.R.A.P. 1.03." Hamburg, at 
87.

 

[¶6]      The Board 
requests that we enter sanctions. Generally, we are reluctant to grant sanctions 
and will do so only in those rare circumstances where an appeal lacks cogent 
argument, where there is an absence of pertinent authority to support the claims 
of error, and/or when there is a failure to adequately cite to the record. 
Osborn v. Painter, 909 P.2d 960, 965 (Wyo. 1996); Phifer v. Phifer, 845 P.2d 384, 387 (Wyo. 1993). Because appellant's brief satisfies each of those 
requirements, sanctions in the form of costs incurred by the Board in responding 
to this appeal are appropriate and are hereby assessed.