Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Appellant was terminated from his employment with Employer, Appellant applied for and was granted unemployment benefits. Employer appealed. After a hearing, a hearing examiner affirmed and found that Appellant was entitled to unemployment benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Commission reversed, finding that Appellant was not entitled to unemployment benefits. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) as a matter of law, the Commission acted within its authority when it reviewed and reversed the hearing examiner's decision to grant Appellant unemployment benefits; and (2) the Commission's determination that Appellant was terminated for engaging in misconduct and was thereby not entitled to unemployment benefits was supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Koch v. Dep't of Employment, Unemployment Ins. Comm'n" on Justia Law

The district court appointed Attorney to represent an indigent parent in a termination of parental rights action filed by the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS). State law required DFS to pay for the costs of the action, including the attorney's fee for the indigent parent. After a jury trial, the parent's parental rights were terminated. Several months later, Attorney filed a motion for an order approving payment of his attorney's fees in his representation of the parent. The district court awarded Attorney a fifty percent reduction from the fees sought in the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the fee reduction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing Attorney's fee application by fifty percent. View "Tolin v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant filed suit against a paragliding company and the company's employees, owners, and agents (collectively, Appellees) after he sustained injuries during a paragliding training clinic conducted by Appellees. At the time of the incident, Appellant was a member of the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (USHPA). Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, seeking to enforce a forum selection clause contained in an assumption of risk agreement that Appellant had signed as a condition of his membership with USHPA. Based upon the forum selection clause, Appellees contended that California was the appropriate forum for the litigation. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the forum selection clause contained in the agreement between Appellant and USHPA was not enforceable as between the parties to the present litigation, as Appellees were not parties to that contract and did not consent in advance to the jurisdiction of the California courts. Remanded. View "Venard v. Jackson Hole Paragliding, LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of taking a controlled substance into a jail. Defendant appealed, contending (1) the district court erred by seating an unqualified juror; and (2) the court erred in sentencing by not giving him full credit for time spent in presentence incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the district court (1) did not err in seating the jury, as the disputed juror was a resident of the relevant county for the required time period preceding the jury selection and return, and therefore, the juror was qualified; and (2) properly credited Defendant for presentence confinement from the time when Defendant's first sentence expired to the time when the court entered sentence on Defendant's drug-related conviction. View "Lake v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of felony larceny after taking a pickup truck without the owner's permission. After the verdict was accepted, Appellant moved for a new trial, alleging that jurors or potential jurors overheard conversations between the State's witnesses, and that the information they overheard tainted and prejudiced them. The district court denied the motion, finding that Appellant had waived his right to ask for a new trial by failing to bring the issue to the court's attention during trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for a new trial on the ground that he waived his challenge by failing to raise it during trial; and (2) there was sufficient evidence of Appellant's intent to deprive the owner of the truck of that property as required for a conviction of larceny. View "Pena v. State" on Justia Law

Landowners' neighbors filed with the Board of County Commissioners a petition for establishment of a county road along an unsurveyed legal description that closely equated to Landowners' driveway. The Board dismissed the petition, determining that Landowners' driveway already was part of a previously established county road. The district court remanded to the Board to conduct a survey of the county road to determine whether Landowners' driveway was indeed part of the county road. Upon remand, rather than obtaining a survey of the driveway or county road as ordered, the Board declared that the driveway was part of the county road. The district court again remanded. Some time later, the county attorney informed Landowners that the Board did not intend to change its position that Landowners' driveway was part of the existing county road. Landowners sued the Board for inverse condemnation, trespass, and ejectment. The district court granted summary judgment to the Board, concluding that the inverse condemnation claims were barred by limitations and that the trespass and ejectment claims failed as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed the district court as to the inverse condemnation claims, holding that Landowners' claims were filed within the applicable statute of limitations. Remanded. View "Smith v. Bd. of County Comm'rs" on Justia Law

While Mother was living in Texas with her two girls, aged four and three, Mother contacted her mother (Grandmother), who lived in Wyoming, to report that her boyfriend (Boyfriend) had bitten her children. Grandmother brought the children to Wyoming. Grandmother contacted the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS), which led to the State filing juvenile petitions alleging that each girl was a neglected child. The district court adjudicated the children as neglected. Mother and Boyfriend appealed, contending that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) because this case was an interstate child custody dispute, the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Wyoming's Child Protection Act; (2) however, the district court had emergency jurisdiction under Wyoming's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA); and (3) therefore, the court's findings that the children were abused and Mother were not protected from the abuse were not in error, but the remainder of of the court's orders were vacated. Remanded for entry of orders that comply with the UCCJEA provisions governing a court's exercise of emergency jurisdiction. View "SC v. State, Dep't of Family Servs." on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to first-degree sexual abuse of a minor. The district court imposed a penitentiary sentence of not less than fifteen nor more than twenty years. Approximately one year after his conviction, Defendant filed a pro se motion for a reduction of his sentence, asserting that a sentence reduction was warranted by his good behavior in prison and by his inability to assist his wife, who suffered from multiple sclerosis, and his daughter. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the sentence Defendant received as a result of his plea deal was exceptionally reasonable under the circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the sentence reduction motion, where it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that Defendant's attendance of a common course of first-year prison programs was only a relatively small first step toward rehabilitation. View "Conkle v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with a felony DUI, his fourth, after a law enforcement officer was informed that Defendant had been drinking and was about to drive his vehicle. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, claiming that his stop and arrest were unconstitutional because the officer's actions were based upon a tip from an unidentified informant. The motion was denied, and Defendant was found guilty after a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding (1) the district court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress, where the totality of the circumstances in this case created reasonable suspicion that Defendant was committing a crime and because the informant was not anonymous; and (2) there was substantial evidence for a jury to convict Defendant at trial. View "Venegas v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child. Defendant appealed, contending (1) the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal for lack of sufficient evidence, and (2) the jury's verdict was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding (1) sufficient evidence existed for the case to be submitted to the jury, and therefore, the district court correctly denied Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and allowed the jury to ultimately determine whether the State had proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the prosecutor did not engage in impermissible misconduct. View "Craft v. State" on Justia Law