Court Opinion

ID: 9787272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:14:09.404468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:54.163238
License: Public Domain

HILL, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 13] If this case had arisen as a matter of first impression, I might have been inclined to agree with the majority. However, seven years ago this Court unanimously found the language in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-105 to be unambiguous. The majority agrees that the facts of this case are nearly identical to those in Makinen, yet reaches a different result based on the conclusion that the language in § 27-14-105 is ambiguous. Yet, the language of the statute has not changed since we decided Makinen Furthermore, I do not ascribe the weight to the legislature's purported intent in adopting § 27-14-1105 that the majority assigns to it. In fact, in my opinion the legislature's intent can be discerned to support continuing adherence to the rule laid out in Makinen. In the seven years since we decided Maki-nen, the legislature has not amended the statute. If the legislature disagreed with our interpretation there, then it certainly had the opportunity to rectify the effect of that decision. It is telling that it did not. In State Tax Commission v. BHP Petroleum Company, Inc., 856 P.2d 428, 487 (Wyo.1998), we held that Section 14 petitions pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-1-804(a)(xiv) are not constrained by a time limit. Later, when our *323interpretation of that statute was challenged, we said: "The legislature is aware of this decision, and it has not amended Section 14 to include a time limit. We believe that limiting the time to present Section 14 allegations is a job for the legislature, not this court." Exxon v. Board of County Commissioners, Sublette County, 987 P.2d 158, 164 (Wyo.1999). Similarly, the legislature was aware that we required service upon the director and the attorney general as a condition precedent for jurisdiction to vest in the district court. In light of the legislature's acquiescence in our interpretation of § 27-14-105, any change thereto is a job for the legislature and not this Court.
[¶ 14] I do not believe in following the doctrine of stare decisis blindly. However, in this case, I see no compelling reason to abandon our unanimous decision in Makinen.