Opinion ID: 2598601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The UPRC Authority

Text: [¶ 33] UPRC argues that while DOR may have meant to revoke the UPRC authority, DOR never legally accomplished this goal because it failed to comply with the prerequisites for revocation. See In the Matter of Appeal of Union Pacific Railroad Co., Wyoming Board of Equalization Docket Nos. 88-110 and 89-61 (1991) (1991 Decision) along with Wyoming Refining Co. v. Bottjen, 695 P.2d 647 (Wyo.1985); Johnson v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 568 P.2d 908 (Wyo.1977); State ex rel. Lynch v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 75 Wyo. 435, 296 P.2d 986 (1956); Hercules Powder Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 66 Wyo. 268, 208 P.2d 1096 (1949); and Mustanen v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co., 50 Wyo. 462, 62 P.2d 287 (1936), which each generally stand for the proposition that the retroactive application of either statutes or administrative rules and regulations are disfavored. In particular, UPRC asserts that DOR's alleged revocation of the UPRC authority was not prospective which resulted in UPRC receiving inadequate notice and that DOR failed to fully consider the impacts of revocation of the UPRC authority as mandated by the 1991 Decision. Accordingly, UPRC asserts that insufficient evidence exists to support SBOE's ruling that the UPRC authority was effectively revoked in this case.