Review by Supreme Court

(a) An aggrieved party may obtain review of any final judgment of the district court by appeal to the Supreme Court. (b) If the final judgment of the district court is appealed to the Supreme Court, filing the record, including transcripts of relevant electronically re- corded proceedings, briefs, and oral argument in the Supreme Court shall be as in civil cases pursuant to Rules 1.01, 3, 7, and 8. Unless stipulated by both parties pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.07(b), the complete agency record shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court. History: Amended July 26, 2006, effective December 1, 2006amended December 11, 2024, effective March 1, 2025; amended April 6, 2015, effective July 1, 2015; amended August 23, 2017, effec- tive November 1, 2017. Source. — Section 16-3-115. The 2006 amendment, in (b) deleted “Rule 4” and inserted references to Rule 3. Board of county commissioners an ag- grieved party. — Board of county commission- ers could properly appeal district court order to supreme court since, as a regulatory body, it was a proper party in action before district court. Miller v. Bradley, 4 P.3d 882, 2000 Wyo. LEXIS 115 (Wyo. 2000). No review until agency and district court have addressed issues. — Review of an agency decision appealed to the district court will not occur without first providing the agency and the district court an opportunity to the issues. Wyoming Pub. Serv. address Comm’n v. Hopkins, 602 P.2d 374, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 481 (Wyo. 1979). And courts may not consider issues not presented to hearing body. — The Supreme Court, on appeal of an administrative case, may not consider, nor may the district court con- sider, issues that were not presented to the hearing body. State Bd. of Control v. Johnson Ranches, Inc., 605 P.2d 367 (Wyo. 1980). When court to defer to state engineer and board of control. — The determination of the state engineer and the board of control of what use will best utilize water and insure its beneficial use must be respected by the Su- preme Court, because the board and state en- gineer are better equipped to dispose of such matters. John Meier & Son v. Horse Creek Conservation Dist., 603 P.2d 1283, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 492 (Wyo. 1979). No deference owed to district court’s review of administrative action. — When the district court sits as an appellate court to hear an appeal from an administrative agency, the decision of the district court is not entitled to any great deference by the Supreme Court on review, as the deference owed the fact finder’s determination of fact belongs to the adminis- trative agency, not the district court. Wyoming Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Hopkins, 602 P.2d 374, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 481 (Wyo. 1979). Nor to decision on question of law. — As a matter of appellate practice, an appellate court accords no special deference to, and is not bound by, a district court’s decision on a ques- tion of law where if heard an appeal from an administrative body. State Bd. of Control v. Johnson Ranches, Inc., 605 P.2d 367 (Wyo. 1980). Standards of review of district court and agency decisions. — On appeal, the Supreme Court must review the decision of the district court and the employment security commission in the exact same light. Sage Club v. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 601 P.2d 1306, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 479 (Wyo. 1979). Record of variance proceeding was suf- ficient. — Pursuant to Wyo. R. App. P. 12.11(b), an appellate court had a sufficient record con- sisting of the appropriate documents relating to a board of county commissioners’ action in denying a property owner’s variance request; in the owner’s briefing, there were several in- stances in which the owner’s counsel inserted counsel’s recollection of the discussions of some board members. Gilbert v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 2010 WY 68, 232 P.3d 17, 2010 Wyo. LEXIS 71 (Wyo. 2010). Sole avenue for review in agency ap- peal. — In an agency appeal, the district court’s judgment is not subject to challenge through a Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60 motion, a Wyo. R. 89 RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE