Powell v. O.R. "Bud" Daily

State, P.2d Wyo., 483

involved the same statutes and contention. raised

The same was earlier this Binger

term in the case of Appellant

712 P.2d 349

case relied the same authorities as argued

here rejected. and which this Court

Disposal governed by of this case is

two before-mentioned cases.

Affirmed. POWELL, (Plaintiff),

Calvin Petitioner DAILY, Osborn,

O.R. “Bud” Frances Ed Harriet, Moriarity, Hays,

P. Gene Alice Coffey, Daly,

Denzel L. and Dennis

constituting Game and Commission;

Fish and W. Donald Dex-

ter, Director of the Game and (De- Department, Respondents Fish fendants).

No. 85-81. Wyoming. Court of

Jan. Rogers, Cheyenne,

John B. petitioner. McClintock, Gen., Atty. A.G. Lawrence J. Wolfe, Gen., Atty. Sr. Asst. and Marion Yoder, Gen., Atty. Cheyenne, possesses Asst. for re- who following qualifica- spondents. upon tions shall payment of the license fee, professional receive guide’s li- THOMAS, C.J., ROSE,* Before and cense: ROONEY,** CARDINE, BROWN and JJ. “(i) States; Citizen of the United “(ii) eighteen (18) At least years of ROSE, Justice. age; presented through This case is to us “(iii) Wyoming; Resident of certification of a constitutional issue from “(iv) Knowledgeable trophy care the District Court of the First Judicial Dis- and game laws; and fish Wyoming. question trict in presented “(v) satisfactorily Can 2—402(a)(iii),W.S.1977, is whether written vio- § 23— or oral examination which is devised lates the and Immunities Clause and administered at discretion of the United States Constitution. Because the commission. The challenged examination burdens a funda- knowledge area, include of the right, of hunt- degree mental and because the ing practices, big game, or not bear a close rela- practices game and of and fish tion to of the laws.” State’s asserted reasons treatment, for the we hold The Commission refused to “waive” the 2—402(a)(iii) impermissibly in- and, requirement relying upon 23— fringes upon privileges and immunities Corpora- Belco Petroleum our decision in Wyo- of the citizens of states other than Equalization, tion v. State Board of ming. Wyo., 587 P.2d 204 refrained from passing upon questions the constitutional

BACKGROUND attempted concerning Powell to raise Petitioner Calvin Powell resides in Idaho statute. Falls, applied Idaho. Wyo- Powell to the petition Powell filed a in review ming Game and Fish Commission for a court, trict which resulted in the court’s license so that he could hunt- upholding the refusal Commission’s to con- Wyoming. ers and fishermen in Powell sider the constitutional involved. application stated in his that he had 30 declaratory-judgment Powell then filed a

years fishing experience in seeking action the same court to have Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and four residency requirement the court hold the years hunting experience private on the 2—402(a)(iii) void, and to be order § 23— Wyoming ranches where he would be disregard require- the Commission to working guide. as a acting upon application. ment his district and fish officer in Laramie court certified the constitutional court, County rejected question stipu- involved to this after application Powell’s be- parties, pursuant lation of the 1-13- cause Powell was not a resident of the §§ W.S.1977, 1-13-107, Wyoming. appealed through and Rule state of Powell 52(c), Wyoming rejection to the Game and Fish W.R.C.P. (Commission) requesting

Commission to be is: answered residency requirement “waiver” of the 23-2-402(a)(iii) “Whether W.S. which re- 2—402(a)(iii). § 23— quires applicant as a Game and Fish 23-2-402(a), W.S.1977, states: Guide to be a resident of the State of “(a) (1) engage period No shall in the busi- of one right, contrary power, ness of consideration or to constitutional I, (Article compensation professional immunity Sections 2 and 4 guide’s Any competent person license. Constitution and Article * ** Retired November Retired November 1985.

IV, Section 2 and Amendment ofXIV the court must determine whether the stat- Constitution) in United States that it in- ute burdens a fundamental or activ- fringes upon applicant’s rights ity, ‘privileges’ since those and ‘im- citizenship effectively national re- munities’ concept which bear stricts harmony to interstate travel scope interstate fall within the pursuance purpose of and furtherance of his of the clause. United living to earn a his chosen field.” Building and Construction Trades County Council Camden and Vicini- Powell claims the that scheme ty Mayor v. City and Council the requires to be resident of Camden, 208, -, 465 U.S. 104 S.Ct. Wyoming year1 for not than less one re- 1020, 1027, 249, 79 L.Ed.2d 258-259 stricts his fundamental constitutional (1984); Baldwin v. Fish and Game pursue livelihood, his chosen means of Montana, 371, Commission 436 U.S. establishes a scheme which 383-388, 1852, 1860-1862, 98 S.Ct. 56 does not bear a close relation to a valid (1978); Witsell, L.Ed.2d 354 State, interest of the and relies 385, 395-396, 1156, 334 U.S. 68 S.Ct. Thus, residency requirement. durational 1161-1162, (1948). Second, 92 L.Ed. 1460 Powell contends that the fatally statute is must court examine the reasons for deficient. the discriminatory treatment to deter- State, hand, on the other maintains mine validity their and their relation to “guiding” that right, not a fundamental degree imposed by of discrimination merely privi- instead a recreational portion statute. This of the test was lege restricting privilege and that developed by the United States residents is a valid exercise of the State’s Witsell, supra: Court in Toomer v. police power. urges The State also “ many ‘Like other provi- protection because peculiar- of wildlife lies sions, privileges and immunities ly within police the ambit of the State’s not clause is an absolute. It does bar power, give legislature great we must citizens of other latitude in determining what means are States there is where no substantial protection. for wildlife beyond reason for the discrimination the mere they fact that are citizens of PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES preclude other States. But it does not CLAUSE ANALYSIS ' disparity many treatment in sit- IV, 2 Article of the United States Con- § uations perfectly where there are valid provides stitution part: relevant independent reasons for it. Thus the Citizens each State shall be enti- inquiry in each case must be con- tled to all and Immunities of cerned with whether such reasons do Citizens in the several States.” exist and whether degree This court recently has dealt with anoth- crimination bears close relation to challenge er to a state enactment under the also, inquiry them. must Privileges and Immunities Clause in State course, be regard conducted with due Antonich, 60, 61-62 principle the States for should have leeway in considera[ble] “An examination of a state analyzing enactment to prescrib- local evils and in validity determine its privi- under the ing appropriate (Emphasis cures.' leges-and-immunities added.) 396, clause involves a at First, two-step analysis. reviewing (1) purposes

1. The definition of resident for than one and who has not claimed 2—402(a)(iii) 23-l-102(a)(ix), residency § is found in any purpose during elsewhere for 23— W.S.1977, Cum.Supp: (1) year period immediately preced- that one " license, ing application per- the date of ‘Resident’ means a United States citizen who ” * * * has been a mit or certificate. resident of for not less instead, “The Toomer court established that clas- a recreation. According to the non-citizenship sifications based on can- rarely a sole means of not stand livelihood Wyomingites, part-time “ ‘ * * * something there is unless seasonal hunting fishing guiding may indicate that non-citizens constitute a well be considered a activity. recreational

peculiar source of the evil at which the The State relies on Baldwin v. Fish and 398, statute is aimed.’ U.S. at Montana, Game Commission 436 U.S. S.Ct. at 1163.” 98 S.Ct. 56 L.Ed.2d 354 support for this contention. In Baldwin Right Fundamental the United States Court was con- Antonich, In supra, fronted with the of whether a before us was the Preference license fee seven and one-half through Act of 16-6-201 greater2 16-6- times §§ nonresidents than that (October Replacement), W.S.1977 charged for residents violated the Privi- employ contractors avail- leges and Immunities Clause. The Court qualified Wyoming able public- laborers for stated: “ * ** projects works in preference to nonresident state’s interest in its wildlife [A] conceded, in State v. laborers. The State yield when, other resources must Antonich, supra, the act burdened a reason, it interferes with a non- right. Here, 694 P.2d at 62. right pursue resident’s a livelihood in however, guiding, the State claims that own, a State other than right a that is work, contrary to construction is not fun- a protected by Privileges and Immuni- “merely damental a recreation- 386, ties Clause.” 436 at U.S. privilege.” agree al We cannot with the 1861. State’s conclusion. However, to hunt for elk was no pursuit calling aof common “[T]he more than engage temporarily a chance to is one of the most fundamental of those activity state, in a recreational in a sister privileges protected [Privileges by the and was not fundamental. Elk Supreme Clause.” Immunities] of was not a means of the nonresident’s liveli- — Hampshire Piper, -, hood; there, mastery of the animal and 9, n. S.Ct. 84 L.Ed.2d 205 trophy sought. Baldwin were the ends (1985). The long clause “has been held to v. Fish and Game Commission Mon- apply attempts to States’ to discriminate tana, supra, 436 U.S. at at ply nonresidents who seek to their (Rehnquist, trade interstate.” Id. at 1281 Clearly Court has held that J., dissenting). The Court has only engaging the hunter is in a recreation- “ repeatedly privi- found that ‘one of the activity receiving op- al and that such an leges guarantees which the Clause to citi- portunity right. is not a fundamental On doing zens of A State is that of business hand, pursuing calling, the other a common equality B on terms State of substantial trade, plying doing a business in anoth- ” with citizens of that State.’ Id. at rights protected er state are fundamental Witsell, quoting 334 U.S. by the clause. The have this 385, 396, 1156, 1162, 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. 1460 hunter, court hold that the is a not a (1948). All of these statements make clear businessperson. pursuing calling, plying a common trade, doing business in another state “guiding” of whether privileges protected by the are clause. calling, is within the of a common ambit merely trade or it is State maintains that is not business whether is, by reading within of the above activities but recreational can be answered paid 2. This difference in fees was based on combi- hunt elk 25 times as much as the license; nation who wished to at 98 S.Ct. the nonresident resident. 436 U.S. at 1855. necessary finding that nonresi- support 23-2- question. here in the statute 402(a) peculiar shall en- dents are a source of evil. provides that “[n]o gage in the business Stating particular that there is no need compensation without consideration(cid:127) or guides Wyo- to increase the number of professional guide’s (Emphasis license.” support ming provides no for this statute. added.) “guide” who wishes to One claiming that too If the State is there is for recreation need not friends wildlife, hunting pressure our much on 23-2-402, be concerned with W.S.1977. guides clearly nonresident cannot be the compen- Only those who seek they pro- are source of such evil when sation, engaged in “the business of those operating from in the state. Cer- hibited by the statute guiding,” are prohibited tainly the State cannot mean that it is they are nonresi- doing from so because guides seeking protect resident Although engaged the hunter is dents. competition provided nonresident activity, temporarily in a recreational guides. Privileges and Immunities person guiding compensation him for designed primarily prevent Clause was engaged a business—his livelihood. protectionism.” Supreme economic such statute is a busi- guiding dealt with Hampshire Piper, supra, Court Newof right protected ness and is a fundamental at 1279n. 18. We do not see how 105 S.Ct. by the and Immunities Clause. present peculiar source of nonresidents many guides, too if such an evil evil of Statutory Scheme of fact exist. Discrimination The also asserts that residents are State rights are in- Even where which, local as far more familiar with laws volved, residency all classifications are not required guides, they are to observe. burdening a funda- invalid. The statute required report to viola- Guides are also privileges-and- “offends the mental game and fish laws.3 clause unless a close link exists tions of immunities support evidence to its reasons for the Act and the relies on no between valid State practiced.” likely Anto- State v. that nonresidents are less to claim nich, In supra, 694 P.2d at 62. State v. obey the laws of our Mon- know or state. Antonich, Wyo- supra, we found that the rejected the contention that a tana similar ming precisely Act of 1971 fit Preference prohibiting nonresidents from hunt- statute by the particular evil identified State. guide promoted adherence to ing without a say Here we cannot Jack, game 167 Mont. laws. State v. against nonresi- scheme of discrimination More recent- 539 P.2d any peculiar identi- precisely dents fits evil accept the ly the Montana court refused to fied the State. any claim that nonresident outfitters were property rights, any or respective less claims that residents are sim- State procedures, enforcement subject less to law rough likely ply much more to know Godfrey v. Mon- than resident outfitters. visiting guides, and that country than are Commission, tana Fish & Game State compelling the most reason for this is Mont., We 631 P.2d criminatory also as- treatment. resident likewise cannot assume residents are far more familiar serts that likely obey to our laws guides are more laws, they guides as are local with guides, nonresident and we cannot observe, than that there is no required allow this statute to discriminate need to increase the number of particular assump- such an nonresidents based Wyoming. do not guides in We believe can tion. assertions the State that these bald 23-2-403, W.S.1977, by any provides order of the commission that: of this act or Section guided.” "Every guide promptly report to the de- shall partment game each violation or warden

Even if we assume that nonresident provides applicant an guides present peculiar evil be- can to “satisfactorily pass be * * * written or oral they usually likely cause are less to know examination which state, may knowledge include game area, of our flatly and fish laws hunting practices, big game, prohibiting nonresidents from all practices game and of and fish precisely perceived does not fit the laws.” Sec- evil. 23-2-402(a)(v). tion requiring After 23-2-402(a)(iv) ap- an provides ap- that the plicant an examination which in- plicant “[kjnowledgeable trophy must be questions having cludes to do with the game care and and fish laws.” area, knowledge of the it seems absurd to provides The statute also examina- that, applicant claim because the is a non- consist, part, ques- tion which resident, safety he is a threat as a relating game tions and fish laws. Sec- because he does not know area. 23-2-402(a)(v). tion The nonresident who passes such an examination leaves little of proper recognize It is that there exist appro- the claim that he does not know alternative, less means of And, priate game previously laws. stat- achieving purported goals the State’s ed, nothing there indicate that a non- ensuring safety compliance with the guide knowledgeable game resident of our game laws. See likely laws is more than a resident to Hampshire Piper, supra, violate those laws. 1279; Witsell, supra, atU.S. 398-399, 68 S.Ct. at 1163-1164. An objec- pro- The State claims that the statute application requirement tive testing such as safety simply motes because residents are accomplish is an alternative means to likely rough country more to know the than sought by previously ends the State. As guides. repeat are nonresident We Justice noted, already provides the statute for this pre- Guthrie’s words that it is a “violent objective testing to appli- ensure that the sumption that mere residence in this State cant knows the laws of our state and competent, knowing guide makes a wheth- guiding. the area he where will be Such acquainted he er be with the area or not.” less restrictive means used should be when Schakel available. (1973). Schakel, In this court struck down a statute which a nonresident to Resources State employ while on national correctly The State notes that this Wyoming despite in land the contention proclaimed court has that wildlife is held promoted that such a statute the State’s by our as a trustee. state Schakel safety in hunt- interest of nonresident State, supra. relationship, Because of this ers. it is claimed the state not has a in We still believe that mere residence right obligation but an to use the resources competent make a this state does not people. Kleppe for the of its benefit guide. position If the State’s were to be Mexico, 529, 2285, 96 S.Ct. upheld, born and raised in New 873, 34, L.Ed.2d reh. denied 429 U.S. Cheyenne City York who moved to over a 189, 50 L.Ed.2d 154 A state’s guiding li- year ago qualify could for a duty right to use these resources for the Powell, cense, while Mr. who has hunted however, people, does not benefit of its Idaho, Montana and and fished mean that laws enacted in connection with qualify he years, for 30 cannot because these resources are free from constitution makes his home in Idaho Falls. The State scrutiny. al merely living seriously cannot contend that State, supra, In Schakel v. P.2d at Cheyenne prospective makes a 414, said: we safety a better risk when “ * * * relationship rugged areas of This trust hunters wilderness power duty give the State the and our state. pointed partic- if the to a the wild Even State has preserve, protect, and nurture nonresidents, the stat- ular evil caused arbitrary power to make an—not guid- prohibiting ute all nonresidents affecting the hunt- discriminatory laws precisely fit ing Wyoming does not ing thereof.” of Mon- evil identified. Court Likewise, Supreme Court the United States requiring tana dealt with a similar statute ownership does not noted that state has outfitters to be residents of Montana. beyond completely the Privi- place a statute found that such classification That court leges Immunities Clause. Hicklin v. relationship did not even bear a reasonable 529, 2482, Orbeck, 98 S.Ct. 437 U.S. legitimate governmental to a interest. Speaking of 57 L.Ed.2d 397 Godfrey v. Montana State Fish & Game resources, the natural relation to its state’s Commission, that the supra. We believe has stated United States present in the case burdens a fun- theory a fiction ownership is but that the damental and so must overcome even impor- expressing legal shorthand applied by a stricter test than that power to people its of a state’s tance to burdening court. A statute a fun- Montana exploitation of preserve regulate privileges-and- damental “offends the important resource. immunities clause unless a close link exists “ * n * necessary conflict [Tjhere is no for the Act and the between valid reasons policy that vital consideration between practiced.” State v. Anto- that the and the constitutional command nich, supra, at The statute 62. power, like its other State exercise that fails to this test. powers, as not to discriminate without so 2—402(a)(iii) burdens a 23— other States.” reason citizens of right. Because it does so Witsell, supra, 334 U.S. at degree of discrimination because the at 1165. 68 S.Ct. a close relation to not bear “ * * * interest in its wildlife State’s [A] reasons for the discrimina State’s asserted * * * reason, when, yield it must treatment, the statute tory we hold that right to interferes with a nonresident’s and Immunities violates pursue in a other than a livelihood IV, 2 of Art. of the United States Clause * * *.” Baldwin v. Fish and his own Constitution. Montana, supra, Game Commission of proceedings Remanded for further con- 436 U.S. at opinion. sistent with recognize importance of scarce We ROONEY, Justice, dissenting, with elk, such as moose and other resources BROWN, Justice, joins. whom game animals to both country. importance of the re- entire agree general I with the law set forth duty and to use such majority opinion, source the State’s I do not the believe people can- the of its us resources for benefit that we have sufficient facts before not, however, According- this change upon apply the fact that which to such law. advisory ly, opinion the this case is an against nonresidents statute discriminates thus, and, improper. one is The matter as a they have not been identified when remanded to the district court for should be previous- peculiar of evil. We have source purpose evidentiary hearing of an to the non-citi- ly on said classifications based exist, facts, upon if such establish the zenship cannot stand “ ‘ * * * of constitutional which a determination something in- unless there is to dispositive. question will be pecu- dicate that non-citizens constitute a W.R.C.P., 52(c), provides: Rule the stat- liar source of the evil at which Witsell, v. su- ute is aimed.’ “In all cases in which a district court [Toomer important pra,] 334 68 at 1163.” reserves an and difficult con- U.S. at arising in Antonich, question an action supra, 694 P.2d at 62. stitutional State v. it, proceeding pending appealed before the was to the Wyoming Game and court, sending question trict before the Commission; commission, Fish the after decision, Supreme to for the Court shall consultation the Attorney with General’s (1) dispose necessary of all and control- office, supported the decision of the ling questions special and of fact make warden; an appeal of the administrative thereon, findings (2) of fact and state its ruling to the district court resulted in af- all points conclusions of law on com- of of firmance the Wyoming decision of the construction, interpreta- mon law and of Commission; Game and Fish plaintiff filed meaning tion and of statutes and all a declaratory judgment action; and the necessary instruments for a complete de- question before us was certified to this cision the case. No constitutional court. The trial court did not make question shall to in an be deemed arise conclusions of law. unless, special all necessary action after The record findings by also contains the findings of fact and conclusions of law trial court which recite: court, have been made the district “THIS having MATTER come before the on the question decision constitutional Stipulation parties Court the necessary to the judg- the rendition of final to reserve a question question ment. The constitutional reserved shall be specific, identify the Supreme pursuant shall the constitu- Court provision interpreted. provisions 52(c) tional be Wyo- of Rule special findings of fact and conclusions ming Procedure, Rules of Civil the Court required by of law subdivision find does as follows: this rule shall final be deemed to be a parties “1. The stipulated have to all party ap- order which either necessary controlling questions of peal, appeal may and such be considered fact; Supreme simultaneously Court only question “2. The necessary of law question.” with the reserved a complete decision of the case subsection, Pursuant to this the district question being constitutional reserved to dispose necessary court must all Wyoming Supreme Court; controlling questions fact and state its A“3. decision on the constitutional points conclusions of law on all construc- question necessary to the rendition of tion, interpretation meaning stat- judgment.” final utes. ex Com- rel. Workmen’s Griffith However, only stipulation in pensation Department Stephenson, reads: record (1972); Wyo., Harding 494 P.2d 546 State, Wyo., 478 P.2d 64 parties hereby stipu- to this matter late that it is to reserve the power to de- Court presented herein cide reserved constitutional Court of advisory not authorize the court to render and, reason, that Peti- Rosachi, opinions. State v. P.2d Motion tioner’s effect should be (1976); Pursel, Wyo., P.2d Tobin v. granted by further hearing.” case, In this the certification from the complaint declaratory judg- for the captioned a section district court contains previous only also a ment makes recital of Facts,” “Statement of but it is no more procedures Through taken in the case. previous procedure than a recital of the in denials, places matter; i.e., the in the re- plaintiff ap- answer issue submitted his by Wyoming Game Fish Com- plication guide game for a license fusal to the warden; request for plaintiff accept plaintiff’s it was mission refused because guide majority opinion was not a resident of as license. The re- statute; the refusal flects the undecided factual issue. warden hunting fishing activities that the scheme involved “Powell claims ”* * which pursues he for compensation. guide to be a resident requires which one re not less than Wyoming for plaintiff has is not whether stricts his past violating the law for the activi- been of liveli pursue his chosen means pursued compensation, ties for but whether hood, scheme establishes guide license as a plaintiff desires the to a does not bear a close relation which means of livelihood. “business [1]and State, relies valid interest of the compensa- consideration or residency require upon a durational statute does not tion” as recited Thus, that ment. Powell contends receiving guide license is mean that one fatally statute is deficient. may using provide it to his He livelihood. hand, on the other main- it, actually use or he use it never ‘guiding’ tains that is not a fundamental activity recreational primarily as a right, merely instead a recreational “pocket money.” Many provides a little privilege restricting privi- and that people use an avocation as a recreational lege to residents is a valid exercise of the here, plaintiff doing he is activity. If so police power. State’s The State also with a fundamental not concerned urges protection that because of wildlife required standing and lacks the to test the peculiarly lies within the ambit of the constitutionality of the statute. We should police power, give State’s must we respect facts in this before ad- have the legislature great determining latitude in Perhaps dressing issue certified to us. what means are for wildlife proper the result facts would make such protection.” (Emphasis added and foot- majority opinion. reached Justice omitted.) note opinion concurring in the wrote in an White Hamp- result in New The factual condition behind these two con- — -, Piper, shire tentions has not been resolved. (1985): 1272, 1281, 84 L.Ed.2d 205 finding by There is no the trial court that yards “Respondent Piper only lives plaintiff’s “chosen means of live- Hampshire border. She application lihood.” Plaintiff’s Hampshire passed has the New bar (attached complaint) to the reflects license Hamp- practice law in New intends to that he will for Bolten Ranch Outfit- Indeed, this record re- shire. insofar as years expe- ters and that he has “4 veals, main- law office she will private Wyoming, rience on ranches in Hampshire. But because tain is in New working.” I where will be obvious from Vermont rather she will commute fact then are whether the “work- Hampshire, she will than reside in New and, not, if ing” “guiding,” is other than practice in the latter not be allowed during what the “means of livelihood” is state. the time other than that the short hunt- Hamp- “I have no doubt that the New ing year. season each residency requirement shire is invalid as correspondence presented Piper. Except Included in the applied respondent administrative ac- during the review of the for the fact that she commute from will attorney plaintiff’s Vermont, a letter from indistinguishable tion was she would be attorney general assistant lawyers. to the senior Hampshire from other New plaintiff represented was which it was every There is reason to believe she print’ in the business” “involved ‘blue Hampshire as other New will be able Falls, that he It also stated Idaho Idaho. lawyers professional compe- to maintain “ * * * tence, stay a considerable amount abreast of local rules and spends months each (upwards procedures, of six to be available sudden time actively year) hearings, satisfy any require- in the and to opinion majority defendants as the "State.” 1. The refers to

365 Hamp- ments of a member New to exercise his to earn a perform pro shire and vol- bar to bono livelihood rather than a desire on part appear unteer work. It does not that her primarily to use it to further his recreation- nonresidency presents special threat to activity. al I would refuse to answer any of the state’s interests that not question certified in a vacuum. After the living lawyers Hamp- shared in New have facts been determined by the trial Hence, shire. I conclude that the Privi- court, can properly be certi- leges and Immunities Clause forbids her fied. Hampshire exclusion from the New bar. foregoing enough dispose not, this case. I do the Court itself not,

need out reach to decide the facial

validity Hampshire the New residen- cy requirement. I postpone questions

another day such as whether a

state may constitutionally condition membership in the New Hampshire bar DOTSON, George Appellant upon maintaining prac- an office for the (Defendant), tice Hamp- of law in the state of New v. shire. Wyoming, The STATE of “I judgment invalidating concur (Plaintiff). Appellee Hampshire residency require- ment applied respondent Piper.” as No. 85-134. added.) (Emphasis Supreme Court Wyoming. We do not on fact or until matters of con- Jan. may dispose struction which of the case have been decided the trial court.

Boode v. Allied Mutual Insurance Com- Wyo.,

pany, (1969); 458 P.2d 653 McFar- City Cheyenne, land v. Wyo. (1935);

P.2d 413 Daily In re Gillette Jour-

nal, Wyo. 11 P.2d 265

supplemented by Wyo. 17 P.2d 665

Finally, I attention direct to the nature action, declaratory one for a

judgment. This fact does not circumvent proscription advisory opinions requirement justiciable controver- Casualty

sy. Compa- Aetna and Surety Wyo., (1981);

ny Langdon, 624 P.2d 240

Witzenburger v. State ex rel. Development

Community Authority,

Wyo., (1978); 577 P.2d 1386 Protec- Police Casper City tive Association Cas-

per,

I would return this case to district findings for reception

court of evidence and part thereon the need relative to on the tor

plaintiff license enable him

Case Details

Case Name: Powell v. O.R. "Bud" Daily

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Jan 8, 1986

Citation: 712 P.2d 356

Docket Number: 85-81

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.