Court Opinion

ID: 9846543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:43:26.803331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:37.667714
License: Public Domain

GOLDEN, Chief Justice,
dissenting, with whom MACY, Justice, joins.
I respectfully dissent. Affirming an agency decision based upon conclusions unsupported by any factual findings ignores Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-110 and effectively overrules our decision in Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Comm’n, 446 P.2d 550 (Wyo.1968).
Although the majority opinion states that it can “discern no way in which the articulation of why or how the evidence was insufficient to establish facts will assist us in appellate review,” previous opinions of this court have consistently held that Wyo.Stat. § 16-3-110 imposes a duty on an agency to support its action with sufficient factual findings to further appellate review under Wyo.Stat. § 16-3-114(e) (1990). Dept, of Employment v. Roberts Constr. Co., 841 P.2d 854, 858 (Wyo.1992); Application of Campbell County, 731 P.2d 1174, 1176 (Wyo.1987); Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 662 P.2d 878, 882 (Wyo.1983); Pan American, 446 P.2d at 555. The rule from the statutes and our decisions is clear; this court must know what factual considerations led to a particular conclusion or this court’s review is impeded.
In a number of cases, this court has considered the requirements of § 16-3-110; explained the statute’s rationale for requiring basic facts; defined basic facts; defined ultimate facts; and demonstrated how the two are properly distinguished. Pan American, 446 P.2d at 555; Union Pacific Railroad v. Bd. of Equalization, 802 P.2d 856, 860 (Wyo.1990); FMC v. Lane, 773 P.2d 163,165 (Wyo.1989); Schulthess v. Carollo, 832 P.2d 552, 556 (Wyo.1992). The insufficient evidence findings in this case are conclusory and, therefore, are ultimate facts to be supported by basic facts. See Pan American, 446 P.2d at 555 (a finding of “insufficient evidence” was conclusory and an ultimate fact); Shenefield v. Sheridan County Sch. Dist. No. 1, 544 P.2d 870, 872 (Wyo.1976) (a finding of “has been discriminated against” is concluso-ry); and Powell v. Bd. of Trustees, Crook County Sch. Dist. No. 1, 550 P.2d 1112, 1120 (Wyo.1976) (a finding of “unable to control conduct” is conclusory). A similar concluso-ry finding was considered in Pan American, where the petitioner was challenging, among other issues, an agency’s finding that the evidence submitted to it did not establish sufficient cause for the agency’s granting the petitioner’s application for an exception to drill an oil well to protect the petitioner’s correlative rights. Pan American, 446 P.2d at 553.
Examining that part of the agency’s order entitled “FINDINGS,” we looked at the matters stated there pertaining to the important factual issues concerning the necessity of an exception well to protect the petitioner’s correlative rights. Id. at 555. In the agency’s appellate brief, the agency said it found that the petitioner “ ‘had failed to carry its burden of proof and to submit substantial evidence relating to [the] exception requested.’ ” Id. We characterized the agency’s statement as “a conclusion, not a finding.” Id. In particular, we criticized the agency for not showing “appropriately ... wherein [petitioner] failed in its proof.” Id. We admonished that “it is not incumbent upon [the reviewing court] to search the record to supply such an omission.” Id. Those same criticisms apply to the conclusory findings of this case.
Although the limited review permitted this court for agency decisions does not allow us to weigh the evidence, determine credibility or substitute our judgment for the agency’s, we rely on the agency’s findings of basic fact to provide a rational basis for judicial review. Pan American, 446 P.2d at 555. Ultimate facts can only be reached by a process of legal reasoning based on the legal significance of basic or evidentiary facts. Id. Basic facts must be settled before it can be determined that ultimate facts found by an agency conform to law. Id. A reviewing court defers to basic facts if supported by substantial evidence and affirms the agency’s decision if the ultimate facts and legal conclusions logically and reasonably flow from those basic facts. Id. We must also examine the conflicting evidence to determine if the agency reasonably could have made its findings and order based upon all of the *454evidence before it. Gilmore v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Comm’n, 642 P.2d 773, 776 (Wyo.1982).
In its findings of basic fact, an agency may not merely summarize the evidence, see Roberts Constr. Co., 841 P.2d at 858, but must thoroughly explain each ultimate fact or conclusion in order for the reviewing court to determine the basis upon which the ultimate fact or conclusion was reached. FMC, 773 P.2d at 165. It is clearly necessary, then, to find the proper middle ground “between a detailed reciting of the evidence on the one hand and a bare statement of the conclusions of fact or the ultimate facts on the other.” CoopeR, Feank E., State Administrative Law, Yol. II, at 470. As Pan American explains, an agency must make findings of basic fact on all material issues in the proceeding and upon which ultimate findings of fact or conclusions are based. Then the reviewing court can determine whether evidence was considered on a reasonable and proper basis. Pan American, 446 P.2d at 555.
In my opinion, had the agency’s decision simply stated the evidence was sufficient to terminate for just cause, the majority would most certainly have reversed. There is no real difference between the facts of this case and the scenario presented, but the rule articulated by the majority will necessitate our approving agency decisions which merely find insufficient evidence or sufficient evidence. I would reverse and remand.