Opinion ID: 2612394
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Are the Basic Facts Adequate to Support Ultimate Facts?

Text: The fourth issue advanced by ANR claims the Commission's determination was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law for failure to contain adequate findings of basic facts on material issues to support the ultimate facts and conclusions. Initial review requires establishing the appropriate standard of review to determine whether the basic facts are adequate to support ultimate facts from which the administrative agency decision was made. It is necessary to isolate the legal difference between basic facts and ultimate facts before determining what is adequate support for the particular ultimate facts being challenged. Three concepts  basic facts, inferred facts, and ultimate facts  are fundamental to the anatomy of fact finding in the judicial process. Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C.A. Hughes & Co., 669 F.2d 98, 102 (3rd Cir.1981). Basic facts are the historical and narrative events elicited from the evidence presented at trial, admitted by stipulation, or not denied, where required, in responsive pleadings. Inferred factual conclusions are drawn from basic facts and are permitted only when, and to the extent that, logic and human experience indicate a probability that certain consequences can and do follow from the basic facts.    No legal precept is implicated in drawing permissible factual inferences. But an inferred fact must be distinguished from a concept described in a term of art as an  ultimate fact.  So conceived, an ultimate fact is a mixture of fact and legal precept [.] Id. at 102 (emphasis added). While ANR's fourth issue appears at first glance to require that we separate the distinct factual and legal elements of the [Commission's] determination    and apply the appropriate standard to each component, Universal Minerals, Inc., 669 F.2d at 103, the issue posed is a sufficiency of the evidence issue. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 446 P.2d at 557. When reviewing a claim that an agency determination is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion because the findings of facts are not supported by substantial evidence, this court determines if there is `such relevant evidence as reasonable minds would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' Employment Sec. Com'n. of Wyoming v. Western Gas Processors, Ltd., 786 P.2d 866, 870 (Wyo. 1990) (quoting Southwest Wyoming Rehabilitation Center v. Emp. Sec. Com'n of Wyoming, 781 P.2d 918, 921 (Wyo. 1989)). As was made clear in discussing the prior issue, we necessarily found `such relevant evidence as reasonable minds would accept as adequate to support a conclusion', Western Gas Processors, Ltd., 786 P.2d at 870, which basic facts were the result of acceptable criteria used by the Commission in making the decision. Using judicial reliance upon and deference to agency expertise in its weighing of the evidence, a reviewing court will not disturb the agency determination unless it is `clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence on record.' Id. at 871 (quoting Southwest Rehabilitation Center, 781 P.2d at 921). A sufficient factual basis to support the finding and the decision exists.