Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellee was sexually assaulted by a county detention officer while she was an inmate at the county detention center. Appellee filed claims under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act against the officer, the county sheriff, and the county board of commissioners for damages stemming from this assault. The sheriff, county, and county commissioners were the Appellants in these proceedings. The trial court denied the sheriff's and the county's motions for summary judgment on the claims against the sheriff for negligent supervision and training and on the sheriff's motion for qualified immunity and also denied the county's and board's motions as to statutorily imposed liability. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the record did not support the trial court's ruling that the sheriff was not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity; and (2) based on the holding that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity, the ruling against the county and the board must also be reversed. View "Uinta County v. Pennington" on Justia Law

Appellant Donna Teeples was to receive a cash payment from her ex-husband, Neal Teeples, the appellee, as a result of the division of their marital assets pursuant to a divorce. Appellant claimed that the payment, made with the funds of an S corporation owned jointly prior to the divorce, impermissibly increased her tax liability and was made with funds that were rightfully owed to her as a prior shareholder in the company. The district court found that Appellee's payment out of the S account was not an income distribution from the corporation, nor did that payment cause Appellant to incur an additional tax liability. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the payment received by Appellant satisfied the terms of the property settlement agreement pursuant to the parties' divorce. View "Teeples v. Teeples" on Justia Law

Appellant, Rodney Shafer, was injured when his tractor-trailer collided with a pickup owned by Appellee, TNT Well Service, Inc. and driven by Melvin Clyde. Shafer and his wife, Brenda, brought suit against TNT, asserting theories of negligence and vicarious liability for damages resulting from the accident. The district court granted summary judgment to TNT on all of the Shafers' claims, concluding (1) Clyde's employment had been terminated prior to the accident, and therefore, no employment relationship existed at the time of the accident; and (2) Clyde's authorization to use the TNT pickup terminated concurrently with the termination of his employment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that summary judgment was erroneously granted with respect to the Shafers' claims of negligent supervision and negligent entrustment, as (1) TNT demonstrated the absence of a genuine issue as to the existence of each of the elements set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts, 317; and (2) Appellants raised a genuine issue with respect to their claim that TNT was directly liable under a theory of negligent entrustment. View "Shafer v. TNT Well Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of one count of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor and eight counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. In this appeal, Appellant raised eight issues where he claimed there was an error in his trial. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the district court's decision finding the victim was competent to testify was clearly erroneous, as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the victim understood the obligation to tell the truth while testifying, and the error was not harmless; (2) the admission of evidence that Appellant visited several pornographic websites on the Internet and admission of photos of the victim and his brother engaging in innocent activities in the nude, pursuant to Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b), was prejudicial error; (3) the district court's statement to the jury that they would hear about child pornography websites constituted plain error; and (4) plain error occurred when the interviewer expressed his opinion that Appellant was lying during the interview. View "Mersereau v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to six counts of second-degree sexual assault in 2000 and was sentenced to six consecutive life terms. In this appeal, Appellant, acting pro se, challenged the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that Appellant's claims of illegal sentence were barred by the doctrine of res judicata; and (2) Appellant's claims that his sentence was illegal due to alleged inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report and that the sentencing court erred in denying correction of factual inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report were barred by res judicata. View "Deloge v. State" on Justia Law

In 2005, the Wyo Central Federal Credit Union (Credit Union) filed an action in state district court against Mark Broderick (Broderick) seeking judgment and foreclosure on a note and mortgage on which Broderick had defaulted. Broderick immediately filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, which stayed the Credit Union’s state court action. Following the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings, which cured Broderick’s original default under the note and mortgage but did not discharge the debt, Broderick again defaulted on the note. In 2010, the Credit Union amended its original complaint and again sought judgment and foreclosure on its note and mortgage. The district court granted the Credit Union summary judgment both on the amount the Credit Union demanded as due and owing under the note and on the attorney fees and costs it requested pursuant to the mortgage enforcement terms. Broderick raised the following issues on appeal, all of them relating to the award of attorney fees and costs: (1) whether the determination by a state court of an oversecured creditor’s attorney fees incurred in a bankruptcy proceeding is subject to the Preemption Doctrine; (2) whether the Credit Union should be denied its attorney fees by its failure to submit these fees to the Bankruptcy Court for approval; and (3) whether the Credit Union proved its damages with a reasonable degree of certainty. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the district court acted within its discretion in its award of fees and costs to the Credit Union, and its order did not violate bankruptcy law or procedure. View "Broderick v. Wyo Central Fed. Credit Union" on Justia Law

In July 2008, Appellant-Plaintiff Monica Claman purchased a house in Rock Springs, Wyoming, from Appellee-Defendant Jean Popp. In September 2008, Appellant filed an action against Popp based on subsidence-caused defects in the house. The district court entered summary judgment against Appellant on her breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation claims, and following a bench trial, it entered judgment against her on her fraudulent inducement claim. The issues on appeal were: (1) whether the trial court appropriately entered summary judgment against Appellant as to her breach of contract claim; (2) whether the trial court appropriately entered summary judgment against Appellant as to her claim for negligence/negligent misrepresentation; and, (3) whether the district court erred in its conclusions relating to the Department of Environmental Quality. Finding that the district court's summary judgment against Appellant's breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation claims were in accordance with law and undisputed facts, and that the court's findings of fact on the fraudulent inducement claim were not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Claman v. Popp" on Justia Law

Ricky D. Miller challenged a hearing examiner's order upholding his per se driver's license suspension. In his only issue, Miller argued that his breath test was invalid because Corporal Karr's (the test administrator) operator permit for the test equipment was not valid. Miller argued that the evidence established, and the OAH found, that Corporal Karr did not properly maintain her certification and should have been decertified. Considering the applicable statues and Wyoming's relevant case law under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded that under the DOH's Rules and Regulations for Chemical Analysis for Alcohol Testing, Chapter IV, Section 4, the operator's permit in this case was valid because the state agency had not deemed otherwise and had not notified the permittee. "Certainly, there is tension between the quoted rule and the DOH rule . . . However, we conclude that section 4 is controlling, as suggested by this Court in Miller's earlier appeal." The hearing examiner's decision was affirmed, and Miller's per se driver's license suspension stood. View "Miller v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Northwest Building Company, LLC (Contractor) performed construction services for Northwest Distributing Co., Inc. (Owner) on a Taco John’s/Good Times facility in Gillette, Wyoming. Contractor brought an action against Owner seeking payment for its services, and Owner counterclaimed. After Contractor’s attorney moved to withdraw, the district court ordered Contractor to find substitute counsel in time for the pretrial conference. When Contractor was unable to find substitute counsel by the deadline, the district court sanctioned it by dismissing its complaint and granting judgment in favor of Owner on its counterclaims. Contractor appealed, raising a number of procedural issues. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Contractor's complaint, and affirmed the lower court's judgment. View "Northwest Building Company, LLC v. Northwest Distributing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Billie Colleen Johnson was convicted of two counts of delivery of methamphetamine. On appeal, she claimed that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the Confidential Informant (CI) to testify, although Appellant was not given the CI’s telephone number. She also argued that the district court violated her constitutional rights when it considered the appellant’s failure to take responsibility for her criminal activity at sentencing. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson v. Wyoming" on Justia Law