Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Father resisted a petition by Stepfather to adopt Father's three youngest children. The district court approved the adoption over Father's objections. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) calculating that arrearages in Father's child support payments; (2) failing to give Father credit for social security payments made directly to Mother as child support; (3) finding Stepfather fit and competent to adopt the children; (4) failing to consider information contained in Father's answer to the petition for adoption, in Father's proposed findings of fact following the hearing in this matter, and in a letter sent to the court by Stepfather's attorney after the hearing; and (5) denying Father's motions for visitation with the children. View "SL v. CAD" on Justia Law

After the owner of a construction project defaulted on its obligations to various creditors, mortgage holder Pinnacle Bank foreclosed on the real property securing its mortgage. Junior mortgage holder American National Bank (ANB) and construction lienholder Michael's Construction, Inc. (Michael's) both sought payment from the surplus funds resulting from the foreclosure proceeding. The district court declared that ANB's mortgage was superior to Michael's lien, but denied ANB's request for contractual interest from the date of foreclosure through the date of final judgment. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's order regarding the priority of liens; but (2) reversed the order regarding interest, holding that the district court did not have the discretion to limit ANB's recovery by denying it interest at the contractual rate from the time of foreclosure through final judgment. Remanded to determine the amount of interest due ANB under the promissory note for that time period. View "Michael's Constr., Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Bank " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant Francis Guerrero was convicted of felony larceny. The district court sentenced Appellant to three to five years of imprisonment. Appellant appealed, claiming the district court erroneously instructed the jury on the elements of larceny and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. The Supreme Court agreed with Appellant's second claim and reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to show that Appellant's activities constituted a taking, one of the elements of larceny, as opposed to a conversion. Consequently, the Court found that Appellant was entitled to an acquittal on the charge of felony larceny. View "Guerrero v. State" on Justia Law

Catherine Morris submitted a worker's compensation claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, and the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied her claim. The Wyoming Medical Commission upheld the Division's denial of benefits. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission did not abuse its discretion in admitting a psychological report produced after the discovery cutoff; and (2) the Commission abused its discretion in limiting the scope of Morris' testimony to matters not discussed in the discovery deposition taken by the Division, but Morris did not object below to that limitation and thus waived her right to appeal that issue. View "Morris v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Timothy Kramer was convicted of attempted first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not plainly err in instructing the jury on the elements of first-degree murder; (2) Kramer's trial attorneys were not ineffective by not objecting to the jury instructions, and counsel's investigation into the timeline of events was sufficient; and (3) the trial court did not err or violate Kramer's confrontation right when it allowed one of the main witnesses in the trial to testify via video conference, as, under the circumstances, presentation of this testimony in that manner was necessary to further an important public policy, and the reliability of the testimony was otherwise assured. View "Kramer v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was the mother of three children who were taken into protective custody and placed into foster care. The Department of Family Services (DFS) later filed a petition to terminate Appellant's parental rights. Because Appellant did not timely file an answer to the petition, default was entered against Appellant. After a default hearing, the district court issued an order terminating Appellant's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant, who failed to timely answer the petition to terminate parental rights, was permitted to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in this appeal; and (2) there was sufficient evidence presented in the default hearing and in the complaint to constitute clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of Appellant's parental rights. View "DMM v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Counts was convicted of aggravated burglary and kidnapping. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error by the district court in admitting redacted documents and recordings into evidence was harmless; (2) the district court erred by limiting Defendant's cross-examination of the victim, but the error was harmless; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a bill of particulars; (4) the district court properly instructed the jury; (5) the verdict was consistent; and (6) there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict on the charges of kidnapping and aggravated burglary. View "Counts v. State" on Justia Law

Chrstine Nodine, whose husband was killed by an avalanche on a ski run at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort (JHMR), appealed the district court's summary judgment order dismissing her wrongful death action. The court dismissed the action pursuant to Estate of Johnson because Nodine, although duly appointed as personal representative of her husband's estate in her home state of Texas, had not been appointed personal representative by the Wyoming state district court upon the filing of her wrongful death action and before the two-year period for filing the wrongful death action expired. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the cause of action in this matter accrued before the publication of Johnson; and (2) the Court's decision in Johnson was intended to have prospective operation only and did not apply retroactively to strip Nodine of her status as a properly appointed personal representative in her wrongful death action against JHMR. View "Nodine v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp." on Justia Law

Alfred Baldes, a certified nursing assistant, was convicted of two counts of third-degree sexual assault after giving a young man who suffered from muscular dystrophy a sponge bath. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Baldes' conviction, and specifically, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude that Baldes was in a position of authority and that sexual contact occurred, respectively; and (2) the trial court did not err when, following a Gleason analysis, it allowed the introduction of Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence, specifically the testimony of another client of Baldes'. View "Baldes v. State" on Justia Law

Soon after Yale Preston was employed by Pennaco Energy, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marathon Oil Company (collectively referred to as Marathon), Preston signed an employee agreement with a disclosure and assignment of intellectual property clause. The present dispute centered around allegations of patent infringement and questions of ownership of two patents that covered a baffle system that Preston invented. The district court found that Preston was the sole inventor of the patents and that the employee agreement was a valid contract, pursuant to which Preston was required to assign his ownership interest in the patents to Marathon. At issue on appeal was the validity of the assignment of intellectual property rights given to Marathon without an additional consideration other than continued at-will employment. The Supreme Court accepted certification and held that continuing the employment of an existing at-will employee constitutes adequate consideration to support an agreement containing an intellectual property-assignment provision. View "Preston v. Marathon Oil Co." on Justia Law