Opinion ID: 1241120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: failure of board to consider standing

Text: The thrust of the first of appellants' arguments is that under Rules 12.08 [3] and 12.09, W.R.A.P., [4] a reviewing court is required to base its decision on the same record which was before the Board. [5] Therefore, they contend, it was improper for the trial court to consider the effect of appellants' transfer of title. However, we have often held that a jurisdictional question may be considered at any time.    The first and fundamental question on every appeal is that of jurisdiction; this question cannot be waived; it is open for consideration by the reviewing court whenever it is raised by any party, or it may be raised by the court of its own motion. [Citation.] Gardner v. Walker, Wyo., 373 P.2d 598, 599 (1962); and see Merritt v. Merritt, Wyo., 586 P.2d 550 (1978); Oedekoven v. Oedekoven, Wyo., 538 P.2d 1292 (1975); Joly v. Safeway Stores, Inc., Wyo., 502 P.2d 362 (1972). The fact that the sale had been made was admitted by the appellants and thus a jurisdictional issue was unquestionably before the district court. Inasmuch as the statutory foundation for appeals from administrative action requires that the petitioner who asks for review must be aggrieved or adversely affected in fact (§ 9-4-114, W.S. 1977), the district court was justified in addressing the jurisdictional question presented by the motion to dismiss. Furthermore, appellants cannot claim lack of notice or surprise in the consideration of the jurisdiction issue by the district court. They presented argument and authority for their positions relative thereto at the hearing held on the motion to dismiss.