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

Heading: Certification of Petition for Review

Text: The second issue advanced by ANR claims the district court erred by certifying the petition for review directly to the Supreme Court under W.R.A.P. 12.09 over the objection of ANR. This issue asks that we review a determination which resulted from an exercise of discretion by the district court because the standard of review for certification under W.R.A.P. 12.09 is abuse of discretion. See Wyoming State Engineer v. Willadsen, 792 P.2d 1376 (Wyo. 1990). In Willadsen, 792 P.2d at 1378, we indicated the district court's decision to certify a case [pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09] to this Court is discretional. A discretional decision by a district court will only be reversed upon a showing of abuse of discretion. [A]buse of discretion has as its anchor point the query of `whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.' Oien v. State, 797 P.2d 544, 549 (Wyo. 1990) (quoting Noetzelmann v. State, 721 P.2d 579, 583 (Wyo. 1986)). See Seaton v. State of Wyo. Highway Com'n, Dist. No. 1, 784 P.2d 197, 202 (Wyo. 1989) and Grabill v. State, 621 P.2d 802, 814 (Wyo. 1980). Because we indicated in Safety Medical Services, Inc., 724 P.2d at 471 that appellate expediency and judicial efficiency are factors for the decision by a district court to certify and because the district court based the rationale for certification on judicial efficiency, we hold the district court could reasonably conclude the certification of ANR's petition for review was proper. We therefore find no abuse of discretion.