Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Swan Ranch was annexed by the City of Cheyenne in 2009, Appellants, neighbors to the land being annexed, filed a declaratory judgment action against the City alleging that the annexation was invalid under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 15-1-402(a). Ultimately, the district court granted the City's responding summary judgment argument on two claims and conducted trial on the third and final claim. Following trial, the district court found the annexation was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's decision upholding the Swan Ranch annexation was not clearly erroneous, as "the degree of contact, the location, and the character of the annexed parcel" were sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements for annexation under section 15-1-402. View "Hough v. City of Cheyenne" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court entered an order stating that Appellant concealed, embezzled, conveyed away and/or disposed of monies and other property of John Hibsman, Jr.'s estate and finding prima facie evidence of the right of the estate's personal representative to recover an amount "not less than $137,566." At issue on appeal was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear Appellant's appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal, determining it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because (1) the order from which Appellant took his appeal was made in a "special proceeding" as contemplated by Wyo. R. App. P. 1.05; but (2) no substantial right of Appellant's was affected by the court's decision, as the proceeding appealed here merely determined a prima facie case that the personal representative could initiate litigation to determine if there was a wrongful taking of at least that amount of money. View "Hibsman v. Mullen" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a home construction contract between the contractors, Big-D Signature Corporation and two LLCs. Morris Sterrett was the owner of the property on which the home was built. Big-D filed suit against the LLCs and Sterrett, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The LLCs and Sterrett counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract. The district court entered a partial summary adjudication that was later partially vacated. A jury trial then commenced, but a mistrial was declared. A partial summary judgment order followed. The remaining issues were disposed of by the district court under a sua sponte dismissal with prejudice. Both sides appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in granting partial summary judgment for Plaintiff; (2) the court did not err in finding that Sterrett was individually liable; (3) the court erred in dismissing the issue of whether Big-D could obtain relief under some of the prime contract change orders (PCCOs); (4) the court erred in finding some of the items in the PCCOs were consequential damages barred by the contract; and (5) the court correctly dismissed the damages claims of the LLCs and Sterrett. View "Big-D Signature Corp. v. Sterrett Props., LLC " on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Appellant was convicted for unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Appellant appealed, contending (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and (2) the trial court improperly admitted lay opinion testimony concerning his level of intoxication. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not denied effective assistance of trial counsel; and (2) the testimony of two bartenders regarding Appellant's level of intoxication was properly admitted and considered by the trial court, as the testimony was based on the bartenders' observations of Appellant and was helpful to the fact-finder's determination of whether Appellant had the requisite intent. View "Mickelson v. State" on Justia Law

This appeal involved the issuance by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Qualify (DEQ) of two general permits for the discharge of produced water from coal bed methane operations. A petroleum corporation and oil company (Appellants) appealed the DEQ's decision to the Environmental Quality Council (EQC). The Wyoming Outdoor Council (WOC) also sought review of the DEQ's decision to issue the general permits. The EQC rejected WOC's claim that general permits were rules and had to be promulgated through the rulemaking procedures set forth in the Wyoming APA. The district court reversed, determining that DEQ was required to promulgate the general permits as rules. The district court also rejected the argument by Appellants that WOC was not entitled to seek EQC review of the DEQ's decision to issue the general permits, ruling that the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act did allow WOC to seek administrative review by the EQC. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) DEQ was not required to promulgate the general permits as administrative rules; and (2) WOC was entitled to EQC review of DEQ's decision to issue the general permits. View "Wyo. Dep't of Env't Quality v. Wyo. Outdoor Council " on Justia Law

Appellant received disability benefits due to a work-related injury. Those benefits were terminated as a result of Appellant's incarceration. Following his release, Appellant applied for reinstatement of the benefits. Although that application was initially denied, benefits were awarded following a contested case hearing. At that time, Appellant filed one application for retroactive benefits for the period during which his prior claim was contested and two additional applications for separate periods of prospective benefits. The office of administrative hearings denied all three claims for failure to comply with the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Act (Act). The district court affirmed the denial of two of those applications. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's applications for temporary total disability benefits did not comply with the Act because a health care provider did not perform a separate physical examination for each of Appellant's applications as required by the Act. View "Talbot v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

This appeal presented a question of first impression whether a criminal defendant's judgment of conviction upon his plea of guilt to the felony of third degree sexual abuse of a minor must be set aside and he be permitted to plead anew because the district court failed to comply with Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-11-507, which provides that a court must advise a defendant seeking to plead guilty to a felony that federal law disqualifies felons from possessing firearms, even though the defendant does not suggest that receiving the advisement would have led him to plead differently. The Supreme Court set aside Defendant's judgment of conviction in this case and remanded with directions that he be permitted to plead anew, holding that the advisement in section 7-11-507 is required, and Wyo. R. Crim. P. 32(b)(1)(E) mandates that the judgment of conviction upon Defendant's plea of guilty must include that advisement. View "Starrett v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant and JLA were the biological parents of AMP. After JLA and JJA began living together, JJA filed a petition in district court seeking to adopt AMP. The petition alleged that Appellant's consent to the adoption was not required pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-22-110(a)(iv) because he had willfully failed to contribute to the support of AMP for a period of one year immediately prior to the filing of the petition to adopt. Appellant responded to the petition but did not otherwise appear in the action. The district court granted the adoption of AMP to JJA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) despite Appellant's claim that his failure to pay AMP's support was not willful, the evidence supported the district court's conclusion that Appellant willfully ignored his obligation to support his child; and (2) because Appellant did not pay his accumulated arrearages, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the adoption. View "In re Adoption of AMP" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a plea of no contest to one misdemeanor count of reckless endangerment. He was sentenced to one year in jail and was ordered to pay restitution to the two victims of his crime. On appeal, Appellant claimed that the district court abused is discretion when it ordered that Appellant pay a total of $335,387 in restitution and that it acted unlawfully when it ordered that Appellant make a "bona fide effort" to pay the restitution within five years. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's order regarding the amount of restitution; (2) vacated the five-year pay off requirement, holding that the court did not have the authority to impose a deadline on when the restitution must be paid; and (3) affirmed the remainder of Appellant's sentence. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

After conditionally pleading guilty to possession with intent to deliver marijuana, Appellant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle. Appellant maintained that he was unconstitutionally detained for a drug dog sniff after a traffic stop and that the subsequent search of his vehicle was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trooper had reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify detaining Appellant so the trooper's drug dog could walk around the rental car for a free air sniff; and (2) the district court correctly ruled that the trooper had probable cause to search Appellant's vehicle, and his constitutional rights were not violated. View "Dimino v. State" on Justia Law