Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State, by and through the State Treasurer of Wyoming and the State Retirement System (collectively, the State), filed this action against Appellees - rating agencies - alleging that the rating agencies were liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in investment losses on mortgage-backed securities during the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The district court granted the rating agencies’ motion to dismiss all claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that the rating agencies did not have sufficient contacts with Wyoming to rise to the level required by the due process clause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State failed to establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over the rating agencies. View "State v. Moody’s Investors Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

When Mother and Father were divorced Mother was granted primary physical custody of the parties’ child. Mother later moved to Pennsylvania where she commenced proceedings seeking to terminate Father’s parental rights. Thereafter, Father asked the Wyoming court to enter orders to facilitate the exercise of his visitation rights. The district court in Sweetwater County declined to exercise jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, concluding that Pennsylvania was a more appropriate place for the parties to litigate all issues. Father did not appeal from the order declining jurisdiction but instead objected to the order. The court denied the objection. Father subsequently appealed from the order ruling on his objection. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding (1) Father’s objection was in substance a motion to reconsider the order declining to exercise jurisdiction, and such a motion does not toll the time for taking an appeal; and (2) the only notice of appeal Father filed was untimely. View "Waldron v. Waldron" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to larceny by bailee and two counts of false statement to obtain title. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to amend judgment and sentence in the larceny charge; (2) the district court erred in denying his motions to amend the captions in both criminal matters; and (3) with regard to his larceny by bailee charge, he was sentenced under a criminal statute that was repealed during the pendency of his proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Defendant failed to timely file a direct appeal to the Court. View "Manzanares v. State" on Justia Law

In 2012, the parties divorced. The original divorce decree provided for joint legal and physical custody of the parties’ three children. In 2013, Father field a petition to modify custody, visitation and support. The district court granted Father sole custody, modified the visitation schedule, and required Mother to pay child support in an amount less than the statutory presumptive amount. The district court also awarded expenses under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 37 incurred by Mother’s pro bono attorney and denied Father’s Wyo. R. Civ. P. 11 motion for sanctions against Mother for seeking attorney’s fees and expenses for discovery violations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) deviated from Mother’s presumptive child support obligation; (2) authorized the award of expenses under Rule 37 that were not incurred by Mother; and (3) denied Father’s Rule 11 motion for sanctions. View "Windham v. Windham" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of felony possession of marijuana. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction for felony possession, holding (1) the evidence was insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction because, assuming a jury could reasonably find that Defendant could have controlled the marijuana, the State failed to show that Defendant had the intent and power to exercise dominion and control over the drugs; but (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the lesser included offense of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Remanded for resentencing on that offense. View "Regan v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of child abuse and third-degree sexual assault of a minor under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-503(b)(i) and Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-316(a)(iv). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not denied his right to a speedy trial under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48 and under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction of sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree; and (3) Appellant was not deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel. View "Rhodes v. State" on Justia Law

Gregory and Debra Lavitt and Harry Stephens owned mountain property near one another. Stephens commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that he held a valid easement across the Lavitts’ property. The district court determined that Stephens held a valid easement. When Stephens violated the conditions imposed on his use of the easement, the district court terminated the easement. Stephens then filed a complaint in district court requesting that the court condemn a private road allowing access to his land-locked property. Stephens proposed a route traversing the portion of the Lavitts’ property where his former easement lay. The district court concluded that Stephens had created his own lack of access, precluding him from seeking a road across the Lavitts’ property. The court declined to award sanctions against Stephens or his attorney and also denied the Lavitts’ motion requesting attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) when it denied the Lavitts’ motion for costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 41(d), as such an award was not available in this case; and (2) in deciding not to impose sanctions against Stephens and his attorney pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 11, as Stephens’ complaint was not frivolous. View "Lavitt v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of burglary and was placed on probation. As part of his probation, Appellant was required to complete a community corrections program and a residential treatment program. Appellant was confined in such a facility for a total of 187 days. After Appellant’s probation was revoked, the district court imposed the underlying sentence, but Appellant was not credited for the time he spent in the community corrections facility. Appellant later field a motion to correct illegal sentence seeking credit for the 187 days he spent in the community corrections facility. The district court ruled that Appellant was not entitled to credit for time spent in the community corrections facility. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant was entitled to 187 days of credit for time served in the community corrections facility. View "Nunes v. State" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a California court order, Father had sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child, subject to limited visitation by Mother. Mother filed a petition for modification of the California order seeking modification of the custody, child support, visitation, and bond provisions. The district court denied Mother’s modification motion, ruling that Mother was required to establish a material change of circumstances in order to warrant a change in custody or visitation but that Mother did not meet that burden. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred by failing to give full faith and credit to the terms of the California order, which specifically allowed a change in the terms of visitation when it would be in the child’s best interests; but (2) did not err in concluding that there was no material change in circumstances that would justify a change in custody. Remanded so the district court could conduct a best interests analysis to determine if modification of the visitation provisions of the California order was warranted. View "Gjertsen v. Ter Haar" on Justia Law

Sandra Greenmeyer and Jacob Greenmeyer divorced in 1994. The divorce decree awarded Sandra a portion of Jacob’s railroad retirement benefits. Jacob retired in 2009 and began receiving his retirement benefits. In 2013, Sandra began receiving retirement benefits. In 2014, Sandra filed a motion seeking an order requiring Jacob to pay to her the retirement benefits awarded in the divorce decree that he had been receiving. The district court granted the motion and ordered Jacob to pay Sandra a total of $33,320. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s order did not conflict with the Railroad Retirement Board’s regulations; and (2) because the divorce decree awarded certain retirement benefits to Sandra, she was entitled to recover her property from Jacob. View "Greenmeyer v. Greenmeyer" on Justia Law