Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant's co-defendant was charged with one count of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and two counts of delivery of a controlled substance. Appellant was charged with a similar conspiracy count and with being an accessory before the fact to one of the controlled substance deliveries. Appellant was acquitted of the conspiracy charge but convicted of the accessory charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in joining Appellant's case with that of her co-defendent; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of a witness, in admonishing the co-defendant's counsel in that regard, and in giving the jury a curative instruction; and (3) the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. View "Earley v. State" on Justia Law

The Wyoming Division of Banking performed a Wyoming Uniform Consumer Credit Code compliance examination of Onyx Acceptance Corporation and determined it was improperly charging its Wyoming customers fees for making payments by telephone or internet. The Division ordered Onyx to stop charging the fees and refund the fees collected. The Office of Administrative Hearings issued a recommended order granting summary judgment for the Division. Consistent with the recommended decision, the administrator of the Code issued an order finding that Onyx violated the Code when it charged the fees. The district court reversed, concluding that the fees were not covered by the Code and, therefore, Onyx did not violate the Code by charging them to customers who opted to pay by phone or internet. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Onyx did not violate the Code and summary judgment in its favor was appropriate. Remanded. View "Vogel v. Onyx Acceptance Corp." on Justia Law

In his appeal from a divorce decree, Husband challenged the property distribution, the award of attorney's fees to Wife, and the order that he pay one-half of an orthodontia bill incurred by Wife's children, who were never adopted by Husband. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the couple's property and debt, and the court did not err in mandating that Husband pay one-half of the orthodontia bill; (2) because Husband did not include a hearing transcript with his appeal, he did not meet his burden of providing the Court with a complete record upon which it could base a decision as to his argument that the district court's award of attorney's fees to Wife was inappropriate; (3) the decree of divorce was properly entered; and (4) although Husband's efforts on appeal were unsuccessful in proving that the district court abused its discretion in its distribution of the marital property, the appeal was not so lacking in merit as to qualify for sanctions. View "Rosendahl v. Rosendahl" on Justia Law

This case arose from a decision rendered by the State Board of Equalization (Board) concerning the valuation point for tax purposes of the natural gas production from the LaBarge Field. The Supreme Court remanded the issue to the Board of whether the meters located at the LaBarge Field well sites were "custody transfer meters" as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 39-14-203(b)(iv) or volume meters for Exxon's share of gas production. The Board held (1) the meters were not custody transfer meters for Exxon's share of gas production, and (2) the same meters were custody transfer meters for the gas produced by two other working interest owners, petroleum companies, who were not parties to the action. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the Board's determination that the meters were not custody transfer meters for Exxon's gas where the Board's determination harmonized with precedent established in Amoco Prod. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue; but (2) reversed the Board's determination that the meters were custody transfer meters for the petroleum companies' gas because the Board did not have the authority to determine the valuation point for "non-party" persons or entities that do not appeal their tax assessments. View "Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Wyo. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

Employee slipped and fell while taking out garbage for Employer. Employee was diagnosed with injuries to her right hip, shoulder, and elbow and received workers' compensation benefits for her shoulder injury and an umbilical hernia. After Employee experienced continuing shoulder pain, an MRI and x-rays of Employee's cervical spine were ordered. The Wyoming Worker's Safety and Compensation Division denied Employee reimbursement of the payments for those medical expenses on the grounds that injuries to the cervical spine were not the result of a work-related injury. The Office of Administrative Hearings upheld the Division's decision, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it was reasonable for the hearing examiner to conclude, based upon substantial evidence in the record, Employee had not met her burden of establishing that, although the condition of her cervical spine may have been causing shoulder pain, any damage to the cervical spine was not a result of her slip and fall. View "Price v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Appellant Jeramie Large was charged with six crimes arising from an incident when he stole and crashed a vehicle. Large appealed, claiming (1) his right to a speedy trial was violated and (2) he was denied his right to counsel without being adequately instructed and warned of the dangers of proceeding without counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was afforded a speedy trial as it occurred without the 180-day time period required by Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48, and any delays did not violate Appellant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial; and (2) Appellant's right to counsel was not violated as the district court adequately instructed Appellant on the dangers of proceeding without counsel. View "Large v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Danny Rodgers was convicted of check fraud, driving while intoxicated, felony identity theft, and two counts of forgery. Rodgers appealed, raising, among other claims, claims of evidentiary insufficiency and a speedy trial violation. The Supreme Court (1) reversed Rodgers' check fraud conviction, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction under Wyoming law; (2) reversed Rodgers' felony identity theft conviction because the facts did not support the felony conviction as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-3-901(c), and ordered entry of a misdemeanor identity theft conviction because the jury's verdict supported Rodgers' conviction for that lesser-included offense; and (3) held that Rodgers' right to a speedy trial under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48(b) was not violated under the facts of this case. Remanded for resentencing on the conviction of misdemeanor identity theft. View "Rodgers v. State" on Justia Law

Decedent executed a pour-over will and a revocable inter vivos trust for the intended purpose of disinheriting her surviving Spouse, and thereby effectively destroying his elective share as to the property transferred to the trust. This appeal involved two consolidated cases. The district court granted summary judgment against Spouse in both matters, concluding (1) in the probate matter, the property transferred and held in the trust was not subject to the elective share; and (2) in the related civil action in which Spouse sought $125,000 from the trust as a creditor for work performed during the marriage on a building owned by Decedent and transferred to the trust, the claim was time barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly granted summary judgment in the probate matter because the property transferred to the Trust was never legally the property of Decedent's estate, and therefore, there was no legal basis for making the property a part of Decedent's estate for purposes of the elective share; and (2) the district court properly found that the failure of Spouse to file his civil complaint against the Estate deprived the court of jurisdiction. View "In re Estate of George" on Justia Law

Appellant Mark Garner was convicted on two counts of delivery of a controlled substance after he was arrested for selling methamphetamine to a confidential informant in two controlled buy operations initiated by the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. Garner appealed, contending (1) the district court improperly limited cross-examination of the confidential informant, a key prosecution witness; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admonishing defense counsel, limiting his cross-examination, and issuing a limiting instruction to the jury when defense counsel was cross-examining the confidential informant; and (2) there was ample evidence to support Appellant's convictions. View "Garner v. State" on Justia Law

Ralph and Wayne Platt were two brothers who, together with their siblings, inherited a ranch. Ralph and Wayne jointly owned and operated one half of the ranch, which they placed in the Platt Ranch Trust. After a dispute, Ralph and some siblings (Appellants) filed suit against Wayne and other siblings (Appellees), asserting a breach of trustee's duties and seeking a partition of the ranch. The district court found that Appellants were entitled to part of the estate and appointed three commissioners to make a partition of the property. The district court affirmed the partition of the estate as recommended by the commissioners with two exceptions. Appellants subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend judgment and/or motion for new partition, arguing that the district court did not have the authority to modify the partition recommended by the commissioners. The court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the circumstances of this case, the district court was authorized as a matter of law to unilaterally modify the partition made by the commissioners in order to obviate the parties' objections to the report. View "Platt v. Platt" on Justia Law