Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Mother and Father divorced. Mother was initially granted custody of their two children, but Father was later awarded sole custody of the children. Father subsequently relinquished physical custody of the younger child, AZS, to the children's maternal grandparents (Grandparents) after AZS was hospitalized for an appendectomy. The parties' older child, BJS, also moved to Wyoming to live with Grandparents. Thereafter, Mother petitioned for modification of custody, again seeking custody of the children. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, as Mother failed to satisfy her burden to provide a complete record for the Court's review, and Mother's brief failed to adhere to the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. View "Zeitner v. Shank" on Justia Law

While Mark and Elizabeth Dowell were still married, Mark created an irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT) naming Elizabeth as is primary beneficiary and their two children as contingent beneficiaries. After the couple divorced, Mark filed a petition to modify the trust, contending that he did not need Elizabeth's consent to modify because she had relinquished her beneficial interest in the property settlement agreement incorporated into the divorce decree. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mark. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the parties' divorce degree did not divest Elizabeth of her status as the primary beneficiary of the ILIT as a matter of law. Remanded with instructions to grant Elizabeth's motion for summary judgment. View "Dowell v. Dowell" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. Appellant appealed, contending (1) the victim was incompetent to testify, and (2) the district court improperly denied his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant had sexual contact with the victim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the victim satisfied the five-part test for witness competency, and the district court was not clearly erroneous in determining that she was competent to testify; and (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to show that Defendant engaged in sexual contract with the victim, and thus, the district court properly denied Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal. View "Hutchinson v. State" 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 pled guilty to three counts of illegal drug possession, two counts being felonies, at arraignment. The district court found that a factual basis existed for all three counts but ordered a presentence investigation without accepting any of the pleas or adjudicating guilt. After the sentencing hearing, the district court deferred further proceedings without adjudicating guilt on both of the felonies pursuant to Wyo. Stat. 35-7-1037. The State filed a motion to reconsider. The district court then withdrew one of the deferrals, accepted Appellant's guilty plea on one count, and proceeded to sentencing. A judgment and sentence was subsequently filed, providing (1) section 35-7-1037 does not authorize a court to order deferral of multiple counts of an information or indictment, and (2) the court erred in deferring entry of conviction and sentence in both felony counts. Appellant challenged the order on the State's motion to reconsider. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State's motion to reconsider was filed and heard before judgment was entered and was not, therefore, a nullity; and (2) the motion to consider was not deemed denied under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 6(c)(2). View "McWilliams v. State" on Justia Law

Appellee left her car unattended with the motor running in her private driveway while she briefly returned to her home to retrieve her pocketbook. In the interim, Colbey Emms stole her vehicle. Emms later got into a high-speed chase, which ended when the car he was driving collided with a vehicle driven by Appellant, the mother of two children (collectively, Appellants). Appellant sued Appellee, alleging that Appellee breached a duty of due care to her and her children by leaving her car unattended with the keys in the ignition. The district court granted Appellee's motion for summary judgment on the basis that no duty was owed to Appellants under either the common law or by statute, and that Appellee's leaving of her keys in her car with the motor running was not the proximate cause of the accident. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellee's conduct was not proscribed by statute and therefore did not result in the violation of a statutory duty of care; and (2) Appellee did not owe Appellants a common law duty of care to protect them from the harm that occurred in this case. View "Lucero v. Holbrook" on Justia Law

Appellant was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court. Based on the same incident, Appellant was later convicted on a criminal charge. Appellant appealed, asserting that the criminal prosecution violated his constitutional right not to be placed twice in jeopardy. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's criminal conviction of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree, holding (1) Appellant satisfied all of the requirements necessary to establish plain error, as the trial court clearly and obviously transgressed the rule of law prohibiting subsequent criminal prosecution and punishment, and (2) the prohibited criminal conviction and punishment adversely affected Appellant's substantial rights and resulted in material prejudice to him. View "Haynes v. State" on Justia Law

This opinion encompassed two separate cases that were consolidated for the purpose of decision. One of the appellants was the mother of KAT, SAT, and JGS. The other appellant was the father of JGS. Following a bench trial, the district court terminated Mother's and Father's parental rights to the minor children. Both parents appealed, claiming that the Department of Family Services (DFS) failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that their parental rights should be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that DFS presented clear and convincing evidence to support the district court's decision to terminate Mother's rights to the three minor children and Father's rights to JGS. View "NLT v. State, Dep't of Family Servs." on Justia Law

Appellant filed a complaint in district court after making an unsuccessful construction bid to the Town of Thayne City Council, claiming (1) a civil rights violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, (2) that the Town failed to provide an independent observation of the bid evaluation and selection process, and (3) a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court granted the Town's motion for summary judgment on the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim and dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed given the deficient brief filed by Appellant and Appellant's failure to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. View "Call v. Town of Thayne" on Justia Law