# Johnson v. State Hearing Examiner's Office

> Wyoming Supreme Court · August 26, 1992 · 838 P.2d 158

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539441

## Case

- **Full name:** Tamara JOHNSON; Paul Radosevich; Jennifer Archibald; And Randy Hampton, Appellants (Petitioners), v. STATE of Wyoming HEARING EXAMINER’S OFFICE and the Division of Revenue and Taxation, Appellees (Respondents); Garrett M. McCARTY and Donald C. King, Petitioners, v. Marvin APPLEQUIST, Charles Brown III, and Nancy Freudenthal, in Their Official Capacities as Commissioners of the State of Wyoming Tax Commission; The State of Wyoming, Ex Rel., the Department of Revenue and Taxation; And the Honorable Stuart S. Healy, Justice of the Municipal Court, in and for the City of Sheridan, Wyoming, Respondents
- **Court:** Wyoming Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 26, 1992
- **Citations:** 838 P.2d 158; 1992 Wyo. LEXIS 117; 1992 WL 203871
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Thomas
- **Judges:** Thomas, Cardine, Urbigkit, Golden, Brown
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539441

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding statute providing for loss of driver’s license based on age was unconstitutional special legislation lacking rational differentiation and violating the guarantees of equal protection
- holding unconstitutional a statute which provided for driver’s license suspension for persons under 19 after conviction of any alcohol-related offense
- stating “the particular protections” of unambiguous constitutional language “must be harmonized with other protective language.”

## Opinion text

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring specially.
I agree that the challenged statutory scheme must be abrogated as unconstitutional under the requirements of our equal protection of the law provision in the State constitution. Art. 1, § 34, Wyo. Const. I join in the opinion of the court insofar as it so holds.
Beyond that holding, the opinion of the court is too far ranging in philosophy, jurisprudence, and legal theories. I cannot subscribe to all of concepts and dicta incorporated therein, and consequently I join only in the result reached of declaring the statutes unconstitutional.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539441. Public record. Not legal advice.