Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant, a long-term Game & Fish employee, was terminated after two disciplinary suspensions and her filing of a complaint alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment, grieving the disciplinary suspensions, and filing a charge of discrimination. The Office of Administrative Hearings concluded that “good cause” supported the disciplinary actions and that they were supported by substantial evidence. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) no facts asserted by Appellant adequately supported a due process claim “of such a fundamental nature that it must be considered” for the first time on appeal; and (2) Appellant failed to preserve her claim that her suspensions were issued without authority. View "Crofts v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Game & Fish" on Justia Law

Merit Energy Company, LLC hired an independent contractor, Basic Energy Services, Inc. to clean out its oil and gas wells. Basic employee Blake Horr was injured while performing the job. Horr brought suit against Merit, alleging several exceptions to the general rule that the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for physical harm caused to another by an act or omission of the contractor or his workers. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment against Merit, concluding that Merit was substantially at fault and that its fault had caused Horr more than two million dollars in damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in instructing the jury to determine if Merit retained control over any part of the work that caused injury to Horr; (2) did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give the jury Merit’s proposed instruction detailing Basic’s duty of care to Horr; and (3) did not err in denying Merit’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. View "Merit Energy Co., LLC v. Horr" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in (1) excluding evidence relating to the victim’s criminal history; (2) excluding Appellant’s proposed expert testimony regarding the character traits of persons who view depictions of child pornography; (3) declining Appellant’s request to instruct the jury regarding self-defense in a home or habitation; (4) instructing the jury, in relation to Appellant’s claim of self-defense, that it must determine whether Appellant or the victim was the first aggressor in this case; and (5) permitting the State to introduce Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence despite the State’s late notice of its intent to use the evidence. View "Knospler v. State" on Justia Law

In 2012, Robert Bratton filed a petition to be appointed the guardian of William Bratton, Robert’s brother. Jeanne Blenkinsop, William’s sister, responded with a counter petition seeking to be appointed guardian and conservator. The district court subsequently granted permanent guardianship and conservatorship to Blenkinsop and dismissed Robert’s petition. Thereafter, Blenkinsop filed a Guardian’s Second Report with the district court. The district court ratified and approved the report, thus rejecting Robert’s objections to the report. Blenkinsop later filed a “Conservator’s First Annual Accounting.” The district court confirmed and approved the accounting. Robert appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decisions accepting the Guardian’s Second Report and the Conservator’s First Annual Accounting, holding (1) the district court did not err in its judgments; and (2) because there was no reasonable cause for these appeals, Blenkinsop was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. View "Bratton v. Blenkinsop" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and battery, simple assault, and strangulation of a household member. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction and sentence for aggravated assault and battery but reversed Appellant’s assault conviction and remanded for an order vacating that conviction and sentence, holding that the district court (1) did not commit plain error in instructing the jury on the elements of aggravated assault and battery under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-502(a)(i); but (2) erred in instructing the jury to consider assault as a lesser included offense of aggravated assault and battery under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-502(a)(iii), and the instruction was necessarily prejudicial to Appellant. View "Cecil v. State" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of first degree sexual abuse of a minor and one count of second degree sexual abuse of a minor, both felonies. Defendant appealed, arguing that his convictions were invalid because the district court did not properly advise him that his future employment opportunities could be affected by loss of the privilege to possess firearms, as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-11-507. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived his right to appeal the sufficiency of the firearms advisement in his plea agreement; and (2) the district court’s firearms advisement in this case was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 7-11-507. View "Henry v. State" on Justia Law

FIB filed a complaint against Dishman for judicial foreclosure. The district court granted FIB a partial summary judgment for the principal due, accrued interest, and most of FIB’s costs. The court later held a bench trial on FEB’s request for attorney fees and granted most of the requested fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court erred by allowing FIB’s detailed attorney fee statement into evidence when FIB did not produce it until just before trial, but the error was harmless; (2) the district court abused its discretion by awarding fees associated with FIB’s efforts to withhold the detailed fee statement and by awarding fees incurred in unnecessary and unproductive work; and (3) in the interests of equity, the fees incurred by FIB after the summary judgment are reduced to account for FIB’s discovery violations. Remanded. View "Dishman v. First Interstate Bank" on Justia Law

Mother and Father, who never married, were the parents of two minor children. After the parties separated, the parties filed a stipulated order establishing custody and visitation, which was entered by the district court. The district court later entered a stipulated order for modification of child support, which required Father to pay child support in an amount based on the parties’ agreement that they were exercising shared custody. Father subsequently filed a petition to modify support, claiming a material change in circumstances. Mother requested that the district court order Father to pay child support in accordance with the presumptive child support guidelines that apply when one parent, i.e., Mother, has primary physical custody. The district court found that the existing custody arrangement was, in fact, not shared as the previous stipulated orders indicated and that Mother actually had primary custody based on the number of nights that the parties had the children overnight per year. The court then found a downward deviation was warranted under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-307(b) and reduced Father’s child support obligation from the presumptive amount. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deviating downward from the primary custody presumptive support amount. View "Dellit v. Tracy" on Justia Law

Pennaco Energy, Inc. obtained oil and gas leases and made contracts with the surface landowners, who were predecessors of Appellees. The contracts granted Pennaco use of the landowners’ land during exploration and production under the mineral leases. After several years, Pennaco assigned its interest in its coal bed methane operation to CEP-M purchase, LLC, which re-assigned those interests to High Plains Gas, Inc. After the assignment, neither Pennaco nor the assignees made any required payments under the assignments, nor did they reclaim any of the land, as required under the agreements. Appellees sued Pennaco for breach of the agreements. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees. Pennaco appealed, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that Pennaco remained liable under the agreements even after the assignment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the agreements contained indications that Pennaco’s contractual obligations continued even after assignment and because there was no express clause that terminated Pennaco’s obligations upon assigning the agreements to a third party, Pennaco remained liable to Appellees to perform the covenants in the event its assignee defaulted. View "Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. KD Co., LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of larceny. The district court revoked Defendant’s probation from a previous case and imposed the remainder of Defendant’s sentence. Defendant appealed in both cases. The Supreme Court affirmed both the probation revocation and the judgment and sentence on the larceny conviction, holding (1) the district court properly revoked Defendant’s probation from the previous case while the larceny case was still pending on appeal; and (2) the district court did not err in the larceny case by providing the jury with an instruction that stated the possession of recently stolen property, when supported by slight corroborative evidence, may support the inference that the possessor participated in the theft; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of larceny. View "Pena v. State" on Justia Law