Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Appellant was terminated from his employment with Employer, Appellant applied for and was granted unemployment benefits. Employer appealed. After a hearing, a hearing examiner affirmed and found that Appellant was entitled to unemployment benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Commission reversed, finding that Appellant was not entitled to unemployment benefits. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) as a matter of law, the Commission acted within its authority when it reviewed and reversed the hearing examiner's decision to grant Appellant unemployment benefits; and (2) the Commission's determination that Appellant was terminated for engaging in misconduct and was thereby not entitled to unemployment benefits was supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Koch v. Dep't of Employment, Unemployment Ins. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Landowners' neighbors filed with the Board of County Commissioners a petition for establishment of a county road along an unsurveyed legal description that closely equated to Landowners' driveway. The Board dismissed the petition, determining that Landowners' driveway already was part of a previously established county road. The district court remanded to the Board to conduct a survey of the county road to determine whether Landowners' driveway was indeed part of the county road. Upon remand, rather than obtaining a survey of the driveway or county road as ordered, the Board declared that the driveway was part of the county road. The district court again remanded. Some time later, the county attorney informed Landowners that the Board did not intend to change its position that Landowners' driveway was part of the existing county road. Landowners sued the Board for inverse condemnation, trespass, and ejectment. The district court granted summary judgment to the Board, concluding that the inverse condemnation claims were barred by limitations and that the trespass and ejectment claims failed as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed the district court as to the inverse condemnation claims, holding that Landowners' claims were filed within the applicable statute of limitations. Remanded. View "Smith v. Bd. of County Comm'rs" on Justia Law

C&J, LLC owned 2.04 acres of property. The northern portion was zoned for commercial use, and the southern portion was zoned for a single-family residence. C&J filed an application requesting approval to develop the single-family residential zone. The Teton County Board of Commissioners approved C&J's final development plan application allowing C&J to construct five residential units and one affordable housing unit in the single-family residential zone. It also allowed commercial parking and other commercial uses. Appellant Wilson Advisory Committee, a non-profit corporation representing citizens concerned about the development of Wilson, petitioned for judicial review. The district court affirmed the Board's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded to require the Board to make findings called for by its own regulations as to whether or not the proposed location and density improved scenic views and lessened adverse environmental impacts. View "Wilson Advisory Comm. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs" on Justia Law

In 1994, while working on a drilling rig, Appellant fell and injured his back. Consequently, Appellant had three back surgeries between 1995 and 2004. The Worker's Compensation Division paid Appellant worker's compensation benefits for his treatment from the date of his injury through the 2004 surgery. In 2009, Appellant fell on the ice at his home and underwent a fourth back surgery, for which he sought benefits. The Division denied Appellant's claim, and the Medical Commission upheld the denial, concluding that Appellant failed to prove the 2009 surgery was causally connected to his 1994 work injury. The district court affirmed the denial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Commission applied the incorrect legal standard in determining whether Appellant proved that his 2009 surgery was causally connected to his 1994 work injury; and (2) under the correct legal standard, the decision to reject Appellant's evidence was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Remanded. View "Hoffman v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Kyle Regan and Joseph Parsons, in separate incidents, were both arrested for driving while under the influence. Each appellant consented to chemical testing, and based on the test results, each Appellant had his driver's license administratively suspended. Both Appellants challenged their suspensions, claiming that their consent to chemical sentence was invalid because they had been threatened with jail time under a Laramie ordinance if they did not consent to the testing. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension in each case. Each Appellant challenged the implied consent advisement as affected by the Laramie ordinance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OAH ruled in accordance with law in determining that Appellants were given the statutorily required implied consent advisements, and it properly declined to rule on their remaining contentions as beyond the scope of the administrative proceeding and outside the jurisdiction of the OAH. View "Regan v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

Appellants both had their driver's licenses suspended, and both requested a contested case hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to challenge the suspension. Appellants made several arguments regarding the validity of Laramie Enrolled Ordinance 1592, which makes it a misdemeanor to refuse to submit to a chemical test and enhances the penalties for driving under the influence if a chemical test reveals a certain elevated blood alcohol level. In each case, the OAH determined it did not have the authority to consider the validity of the ordinance and upheld the suspension of Appellants' driver's licenses. The district court upheld the OAH's decision and dismissed Appellants' request for a declaration that the ordinance was unenforceable and unconstitutional on the basis that Appellants failed to raise a justiciable controversy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the OAH appropriately found that the ordinance did not change the nature of the advisements law enforcement officers were required to provide an individual pursuant to the state's implied consent statutes; (2) the OAH also properly upheld Appellants' driver's license suspensions; and (3) the district court did not err when it dismissed Appellants' petition for declaratory relief. View "Sandoval v. State" on Justia Law

The case involved two permitting actions for a wind energy project in the mountains of Converse County. Objectors included the Northern Laramie Range Alliance (NLRA) and Northern Laramie Range Foundation (NLRF). In the first case (Case 1), Objectors challenged the district court's affirmance of the County Board of County Commissioners (Board) decision to grant Wasatch Wind Intermountain, LLC's (Wasatch) application for a Wind Energy Conversion System Permit (WECS permit). They also challenged the court's rulings that NLRA and NLRF did not have standing to appeal the Board's decision. In the second case (Case 2), Objectors challenged the district court's affirmance of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Industrial Siting Council's (ISC) decision to grant a state industrial siting permit for construction of the project. In Case 1, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) NLRA had standing but NLRF did not; and (2) the Board properly granted Wasatch's application for a WECS permit. In Case 2, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ISC acted within its authority in granting the industrial siting permit, and there was sufficient evidence to justify its decision. View "N. Laramie Range Found. v. Converse County Bd. of County Comm'rs" on Justia Law

Roundup Heights, a subdivision in Laramie County, was located within one mile of the City of Cheyenne. The owners of certain lots applied for County approval of a partial vacation of the subdivision plat. The County granted the partial vacation without City approval despite the City's contention that the partial vacation required joint approval by both the City and the County. The City filed suit, seeking declaratory judgment that joint City and County approval was required for partial vacation if the affected land was within one mile of the City. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the relevant statutes unambiguously do not require joint City and County approval of partial vacations if the affected property is wholly within the County. View "City of Cheyenne v. Laramie County Bd. of Comm'rs" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured in an accident that occurred during the course of her employment. After receiving a permanent partial impairment award from the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Division, Appellant sought permanent partial disability benefits. The Division denied Appellant's application, stating that she had not complied with the statutory work search requirements. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings granted summary judgment for the Division, concluding that Appellant had not timely submitted documentation showing she had sought work. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant's work search submission was timely; and (2) Appellant was entitled to a hearing and the opportunity to present evidence showing that she actively sought work. View "Stallman v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

After being arrested for driving while under the influence, Appellant submitted a request for contested case hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) asking the OAH to rule that the procedure used by the arresting officer to conduct the chemical breath test upon which his arrest was based did not comply with Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-6-105(a) and, therefore, the proposed suspension of his driver's license must be vacated. The OAH hearing examiner upheld the suspension. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) it was proper for OAH to apply a presumption that the underlying chemical test result was valid; and (2) Appellant did not present any evidence at the administrative hearing to rebut the presumption that the breath test results were accurate and failed to meet the requirements of Wyo. R. App. P. 12.08 that would allow the Supreme Court to order the additional evidence to be taken before the agency. View "Romsa v. State ex rel. Wyo. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law