Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case concerned a petition for the establishment of a private road filed by Merlin and Lori Zowada. In the first appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for further remand to the county board of county commissioners (the Commission) to make adequate findings of fact on specific issues. While the case was pending before the Court, the legislature amended Wyo. Stat. Ann. 24-9-101, which governs the procedure used when petitioning for the establishment of a private road. On remand, the Commission and its hearing officer chose to apply the statute as amended in 2008 and 2009, although the case had originally proceeded under the statute as it existed in 2005. Mullinax filed a petition for writ of review, arguing that the 2005 version of the statute should apply to the proceedings. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the hearing officer's decision to apply the statute as it existed in 2009 was in error, as, while the amendments to the statute were procedural in nature, the general rule against retroactive application of the amendment applied. Remanded. View "Mullinax Concrete Serv. v. Zowada" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, David Mercer pleaded no contest to three felony counts of sexual abuse of a minor. After he was sentenced, Mercer appealed, asserting that the State breached its plea agreement at sentencing when it misstated facts and argued for a harsh sentence based on Mercer's alleged failure to accept personal responsibility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mercer failed to establish that the State breached the plea agreement where (1) a misstatement made by the prosecutor did not prejudice Mercer or violate any clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (2) the prosecutor properly recommended that Mercer should receive the maximum possible sentence based on Mercer's attempt to minimize his behavior. View "Mercer v. State" on Justia Law

Victor Jackson pled guilty to one count of third degree sexual assault in exchange for the state's agreement to request probation. The district court placed him on supervised probation for five years. Six months later, the State filed a petition to revoke his probation. A year later, Jackson filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting that the victim of the assault had identified someone else as the perpetrator. The district court denied the motion and entered an order revoking probation. The court then imposed a sentence of four to five years. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to withdraw, holding that there was nothing in the record indicating that the district court could not reasonably have concluded as it did or that some facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

The Town of Jackson applied to the district court for an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) against Operation Save America (OSA), an anti-abortion protest group. The Town sought to restrict OSA's demonstration activities in and around the Jackson town square during the Boy Scouts' 2011 annual Elk Fest. The district court granted the TRO, which enjoined OSA from assembling on the town square without a permit or holding signs of any graphic nature on the square or within a two block radius thereof during the Elk Fest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the case was not moot and the TRO was a final appealable order; (2) the ex parte TRO was issued in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because under a strict scrutiny analysis, there was no evidence the TRO would serve a compelling government interest of protecting youth from disturbing images or maintaining the peace, and the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to serve the Town's interests; and (3) the district court violated Wyo. R. Civ. P. 65 by issuing the TRO without notice to OSA and an opportunity for OSA to be heard. View "Operation Save America v. City of Jackson" on Justia Law

Appellant Miachel Maier was convicted of first-degree and attempted first-degree sexual assault. Appellant appealed, arguing (1) he was prejudiced by the admission of hearsay testimony and by prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, and (2) he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel at trial due to his attorney's failure to object to either the hearsay testimony or the prosecutor's closing remarks. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although the district court admitted testimony that included inadmissible hearsay, Appellant was not denied a substantial right and was therefore not materially prejudiced; (2) the prosecutor's statements in his closing argument did not amount to misconduct; and (3) Appellant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was so deficient as to require reversal of his conviction. View "Maier v. State" on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute between a surface owner and a timber estate owner. In the first appeal, the Supreme Court reversed a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the surface owner and remanded for proceedings to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the timber estate owner's predecessor in interest's (Union Pacific) reservations of timber in deeds from the early 1900s in order to determine the parties' intent with regard to the duration of the timber estates. The district granted judgment in favor of the surface owner, concluding (1) Union Pacific intended to reserve only those trees in existence at the time of the grant and of sufficient size to be suitable for use in construction, and (2) Union Pacific's timber reservations had expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly ruled, on the evidence before it, that Union Pacific intended its reservation of timber to include only trees of a suitable size which existed on the subject properties at the time of the deeds; and (2) the evidence presented at trial clearly established that such timber no longer existed on the properties. View "Ecosystem Res., L.C. v. Broadbent Land & Res., LLC " on Justia Law

Morrow Global (Morrow) filed suit against a Uinta County school district (District) and Windjammer Communications (Windjammer) that (1) sought a declaration that Morrow was a co-owner with the District of a conduit located under an interstate; (2) sought an order permanently enjoining the District from interfering with Morrow's use of the conduit; and (3) asserted that Windjammer had been unjustly enriched by using the conduit without paying for it. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the District and Windjammer (Defendants) after treating Defendants' motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, concluding that Morrow had failed to present any facts showing that it was an owner of the conduit and entitled to the relief sought. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the circumstances, the district court improperly granted summary judgment when the parties had no opportunity to present evidence and argument on the issue of Morrow's ownership. View "World Family Corp v. Windjammer Commc'ns, LLC" on Justia Law

Kenneth Cook was terminated from his employment as a sheriff department deputy for violating department policies related to report writing and firearms security. Cook requested a contested case hearing before the sheriff, who upheld Cook's dismissal from the Department. The district court reversed, concluding that the record did not contain substantial evidence demonstrating cause existed to dismiss Cook on the basis of his violation of department policies. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Sheriff's determination that cause existed to discharge Cook on the basis of his violation of department policies was not supported by substantial evidence. View "Laramie County Sheriff's Dep't v. Cook" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The other vehicle involved in the accident, a truck, was listed on two different insurance policies: an Allstate policy issued to Jeremy Lucas and a Mountain West policy issued to Wyoming Electric Company. Appellee, Mountain West, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, requesting that the district court find Mountain West did not have to cover the truck under the policy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mountain West, finding that the owner of Wyoming Electric had given the truck to Lucas and, therefore, the truck was no longer covered under the company's insurance policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that although the truck was titled and registered in the name of Wyoming Electric and was still listed as a specific vehicle on the Mountain West Policy, Mountain West was not required to pay under the policy because, on the date of the accident, Wyoming electric no longer owned the truck and the truck was no longer covered under the Mountain West insurance policy. View "Mendenhall v. Mountain W. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Rex and Vickie Lewis and Brad and Brenda Carnahan owned property in a subdivision. The Lewises filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the Carnahans did not have authority to block their use of a public easement to access their property and an injunction requiring the Carnahans to remove a fence they erected across the easement. The Carnahans responded by seeking to have title to the easement quieted in them. The district court entered judgment in favor of the Lewises, holding (1) neither the statute of limitations nor laches barred the Lewises' declaratory judgment action; and (2) the easement remained dedicated to public use, meaning the Lewises had the right to use the easement and the Carnahans did not have the right to obstruct their use. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded (1) the Lewises had standing to bring their claim for declaratory relief; (2) the Lewises' claims were not barred by the statute of limitations or the equitable doctrine of Laches; and (3) an affidavit recorded in 1994 was not effective to vacate the public easement. View "Carnahan v. Lewis" on Justia Law