Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Despite a divorce in 1971, appellant Christina Maycock and Bill Maycock and their children lived together as a family in a home jointly owned by the couple. In 1992, Christina, an employee of the county cemetery district, enrolled in an insurance plan that limited coverage to the district's employees, their spouses, and their dependent children. On the insurance enrollment form, Christina listed Bill as her spouse. In 2010, Christina was convicted of obtaining property by false pretenses because of her alleged misrepresentation on the insurance enrollment form. Christina appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. The Supreme Court held that there was insufficient evidence to sustain Christina's conviction. The Court then reversed the conviction, concluding that there was no evidence on the record that Christina's misrepresentation was the determining factor in the board's decision to pay the cost of insuring Bill. Remanded. View "Maycock v. State" on Justia Law

Kara Dunham filed a lawsuit against Robert Fullerton for injuries stemming from an automobile accident. After filing his answer, Fullerton passed away. Fullerton's counsel then made a Wyo. R. Civ. P. 68 offer of settlement, and Dunham filed a notice of acceptance pursuant to Rule 68. Fullerton's counsel filed the acceptance along with the offer of settlement. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice, ruling that Dunham's acceptance was invalid because Dunham attempted to reserve the right to litigate all issues in an action against the estate. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) the district court correctly recognized the legal requirement that a Rule 68 acceptance must mirror the offer, and (2) the district court did not err in refusing to enter judgment upon Dunham's acceptance of a Rule 68 offer of settlement. View "Dunham v. Fullerton" on Justia Law

After Barbara Magin purchased property in the Solitude subdivision, the Solitude site committee informed her that pre-existing fences and a barn were in violation of the subdivision covenants. Solitude filed a complaint against Magin, alleging violations of the covenants and seeking to recover attorney fees. Attorney Glenn Ford, who practiced in the same firm as the first attorney Magin hired before retaining other counsel, acted as Solitude's counsel. No written waiver of conflict was executed. Magin filed a motion to disqualify Ford from acting as Solitude's counsel due to conflict of interest. The motion was dismissed. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Solitude. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Solitude's counsel had a conflict of interest, but the district court did not err by refusing to disqualify the firm because Magin's motion to disqualify was untimely; (2) the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Solitude; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by ordering Magin to pay the attorney fees generated by her former firm because it failed to segregate the non-recoverable fees associated with clearing the conflict. View "Magin v. Solitude Homeowners, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Kelly Robinson was convicted of three misdemeanors and one felony. All of the crimes arose in a domestic violence context. One of Robinson's misdemeanor convictions was the violation of a protection order, which resulted from Robinson mailing a letter to the victim, who had obtained a protection order. Robinson challenged his conviction for violation of the protection order, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for the crime charged. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the record on appeal lacked evidence to support the conviction as charged. Because the circuit court found that Robinson's conduct constituted stalking as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-506(b), the trial court erred in convicting Robinson under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-4-404(b). Because of the error, the Court reversed the conviction entered pursuant to Section 6-4-404, and affirmed the remainder of the judgment. Remanded. View "Robinson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Vasco was arrested for interference with a police officer and for driving under the influence of alcohol. Vasco refused to submit to chemical testing, and the Wyoming DOT advised him that it was suspending his driver's license for six months. Vasco requested a hearing, at the conclusion of which the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension. Vasco sought review in the district court, which affirmed the OAH order. Vasco appealed, claiming the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for interference, and therefore the subsequent search was improper and the evidence obtained in the search that supported the DUI arrest was inadmissible. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supported the OAH decision where (1) the officer had probable cause to arrest Vasco for interference with a police officer, and (2) the officer had probable cause to believe Vasco had been driving under the influence of alcohol. View "Vasco v. Wyo. DOT" on Justia Law

Defendant William Bruyette was charged with felony possession of marijuana. At trial, he sought to introduce evidence that he obtained the marijuana in California with a prescription for medical marijuana. The district court granted the State's in limine motion to exclude evidence relating to a medical marijuana defense and instructed the jury that possession of medical marijuana was not a defense to the crime charged. The jury convicted defendant of felony possession of marijuana. Defendant appealed, claiming the district court denied him his constitutional right to present his defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the question of whether or not defendant had a medical marijuana card from a California physician was irrelevant because it is illegal, under Wyoming law, for a physician to prescribe or order the possession of marijuana. View "Bruyette v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Van Patten was injured while working on a drilling rig. Van Patten filed suit against several of his co-employees, claiming their willful and wanton misconduct caused his injuries. The district court held as a matter of law that the co-employees' acts or omissions were not willful and wanton and granted their motion for summary judgment. Van Patten appealed. In support of his assertion that his co-employees acted willfully and wantonly, Van Patten relied heavily on the company's written policies and after-the-fact statements by upper level employees who were not present on the rig or involved in using the machinery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that in light of the testimony of those who were involved, the policies and statements relied upon by Van Patten did not establish a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether the co-employees knew the operation was dangerous and intentionally disregarded the danger. View "Van Patten v. Gipson" on Justia Law

Ron and Linda Reece and Greg and Staci Hunter agreed to flip a house and put their agreement in writing. Mr. Reece supplied the labor and submitted invoices for expenses incurred to Mrs. Hunter. Later, the Hunters became dissatisfied with the progress on the project, told Mr. Reece to stop working on the project, and hired other contractors to complete the project. The Reeces then filed suit against the Hunters, alleging that, under the contract, the Reeces were entitled to payment for Mr. Reece's labor on the project in addition to one half of the profits. The district court found that the parties' contract was not valid because there had been no meeting of the minds regarding an essential term of the agreement, that being whether Mr. Reece was to be paid for his work in addition to receiving one half of the profits. The court then invoked the theory of unjust enrichment to award all of the profits to the Reeces. The Hunters appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, given the language of the written agreement and the parties' stipulation that it was a valid contract, the district court erred in finding there was no contract. View "Hunter v. Reece" on Justia Law

This case involved an appeal from two district court orders, (1) an order regarding motions related to arbitration and (2) a decision and order over-ruling and denying any requested relief regarding defendants' objections to order regarding motions related to arbitration. In the first order, the district court granted appellee's motion to compel arbitration and stayed district court proceedings. In the second order, the district court overruled objections to the first order. At issue was whether the order compelling arbitration was a final, appealable order. After an examination of state court rules, state statutes, and the Federal Arbitration Act, the Supreme Court held that neither the first nor the second order was an appealable order and dismissed the appeal. View "Dennis v. Jack Dennis Sports, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Gary Marquess was tried and convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and battery, battery, kidnapping, and being a habitual criminal. Appellant appealed, arguing (1) the district court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of the events that occurred the first day of the alleged assault, and (2) the district court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence a 911 recording as a prior consistent statement under Wyo. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B). The Supreme Court held (1) the admission of evidence of events occurring on March 1, 2009 did not result in a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law and therefore plain error did not occur; and (2) the 911 call statements were improperly admitted as prior consistent statements under 801(d)(1)(B) because they were not offered to rebut a recent charge of fabrication, improper motive or influence. However, the the 911 call statements were properly admissible as an excited utterance under Wyo. R. Evid. 803(2). Affirmed. View "Marquess v. State" on Justia Law