Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant owned and operated two mobile home parks. In 2000, Appellant changed its practice of including in the rent it charged tenants the cost of water it purchased from the City for the tenants' use. Instead, Appellant installed water meters on each trailer lot and began charging tenants for water usage separately from their rent. In 2008, the Public Service Commission (PSC) determined that Appellant was a public utility and therefore subject to regulation by the PSC. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant metered a commodity utility to its tenants, it was a public utility under Wyoming law and therefore subject to PSC regulation; and (2) PSC's regulation of Appellant did not violate Appellant's equal protection rights. View "Gosar's Unlimited Inc. v. Wyo. Pub. Serv. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to burglary and attempted assault on a peace officer and nolo contendere to four counts of interference with custody. Appellant received suspended sentences in favor of supervised probation. Thereafter, the State filed a fourth petition to revoke Appellant's probation. After a probation revocation hearing, the district court found Appellant had violated the terms of his probation and, accordingly, revoked Appellant's probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that did not abuse its discretion in (1) revoking Appellant's probation where Appellant failed to prove his conduct in violation of the conditions of his probation was not willful; and (2) ordering involuntary administration of medication to restore Appellant's competency for the probation revocation proceedings. View "DeMillard v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant sued his former employer (Employer) in district court, alleging claims for fraud and wrongful termination. Employer, however, had been sold to a foreign corporation (Corporation), which was not a resident of Wyoming. Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the case for improper venue and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court granted the motion on both grounds. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's dismissal for improper venue; but (2) vacated the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim, holding that the court erred as a matter of law when it reached the merits of the case after determining that it had to be dismissed on venue grounds. Remanded for a dismissal without prejudice based upon improper venue. View "Bourke v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., LP" on Justia Law

Appellant was arrested for driving under the influence of a controlled substance (DUI) after he was stopped for failing to use his turn signal. Appellant refused to submit to chemical testing. The Wyoming Department of Transportation subsequently suspended Appellant's driver's license for six months. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the OAH order upholding the suspension of Appellant's driver's license, holding that the OAH's conclusion that probable cause existed to arrest Appellant for DUI was clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. View "Vogt v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

While working on a road paving project Plaintiff was hit and dragged by an asphalt paving machine being driven by a co-employee. Plaintiff suffered serious injuries, including brain damage and amputation of a leg. Plaintiff filed suit against two co-employee supervisors (Defendants), claiming their willful and wanton misconduct was the cause of his injuries. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that they did not intentionally act to cause physical harm as defined under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 27-14-104(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Vandre v. Kuznia" on Justia Law

After Father failed to pay Mother's attorney's fees in accordance with a district court order in Jensen I, the district court held Father in contempt. As a sanction for contempt, the court ordered Father to pay Mother an additional $600 in attorney's fees. The district court's underlying order awarding attorney's fees to Mother in Jensen I, however, was reversed by the Supreme Court before Father submitted his brief. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the district court's contempt order as a result of the Court's reversal of the district court's award of attorney's fees. View "Jensen v. Milatzo-Jensen" on Justia Law

Petitioner, who was fifteen at the time of the crimes, was charged as an adult with nine felonies. Prior to trial, Petitioner filed a motion to transfer his case from district court to juvenile court, which the district court denied. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for writ of review, claiming that the district court improperly placed the burden on him to establish that the case should be transferred to juvenile court. The Supreme Court granted the review. The Court then reversed, holding that the district court erred in failing to assign the burden of persuasion to the State to establish that the case should not be transferred to juvenile court. Remanded. View "JB v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with burglary and attempted sexual assault. After the attorney Defendant engaged to represent him was severely injured in a motorcycle accident and was unable to continue representing Defendant, the district court allowed Defendant one day to make his choice of a new attorney. After a trial, Defendant was convicted on both counts. Defendant appealed, contending that the district court infringed on his constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his choice by imposing a one-day deadline for choosing new counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not deprive Defendant of a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice. View "Hankins v. State" on Justia Law

The sentence at issue in this case was one of four imposed for unrelated crimes by three district courts between 2007 and 2010. The disputed judgment and sentence was filed in 2011. Later that year, Defendant filed a motion asking the court to correct his sentence, which he claimed was illegal. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court to correct the sentence, holding it to be illegal when considered in conjunction with Defendant's other sentences. Following remand for resentencing, the district court issued an amended judgment and sentence. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of an amended sentence, holding that the sentence imposed on remand was still illegal because the amended sentence required an interruption in service of the period of incarceration, and this sentence must be made to run concurrently with a previously imposed sentence. View "Cothren v. State" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife had four children, one of whom was a disabled adult daughter. Upon the parties' divorce, the district court ruled (1) no support was necessary for the adult daughter because she received Social Security benefits; (2) the parties' teenager should split time between his parents; (3) Wife should have primary custody of the youngest child; (4) Wife was entitled to a few items of property and $149,500 as payment for her share of the remainder of the marital property; and (5) Husband's child support obligation was $751 per month based on a finding that Husband's monthly net income was $5,333. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's order regarding the adult daughter, holding that the daughter was still entitled to support; (2) held that the district court erred in determining Husband's net income for a determination of child support; and (3) held that the district court did not err in its disposition of the marital property. View "Bagley v. Bagley" on Justia Law