Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court allowing Wife trial counsel to withdraw from representation several weeks prior to a divorce bench trial, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted counsel's motion to withdraw without conditioning the withdrawal upon the substitution of other counsel by written appearance.On appeal, Wife argued that the district court abused its discretion under the circumstances because no "extraordinary circumstances" were cited, as required under Rule 102(c) of the Wyoming Uniform Rules for District Courts to allow her trial counsel to withdraw without first obtaining substitute counsel. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the district court could reasonably conclude extraordinary circumstances existed to allow Wife's counsel to withdraw without requiring substitution of counsel. View "McGill v. McGill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's order changing the permanency plan for Mother and her two youngest children from family reunification to adoption, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.On appeal, Mother argued that the juvenile court abused its discretion in determining that the Department of Family Services (DFS) made reasonable but ultimately unsuccessful efforts at reunification and that the permanency plan for the children should be changed to adoption. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the record adequately supported the court's determination that DFS met its burden to prove its efforts at reunifying Mother with her two children were reasonable but unsuccessful. View "NP v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court awarding Mother primary physical custody of the parties' daughter, CP, holding that the district court's findings were sufficient to support the court's order awarding Mother primary physical custody of CP.In 2017, Father filed his petition under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 52(a) to establish custody, visitation, and child support. In 2020, the district court entered an order requiring the parties to share physical custody of TP. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the district court's Rule 52(a) findings were insufficient under the circumstances. On remand, the district court awarded Mother primary physical custody of TP. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's order made findings of fact sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 52(a). View "Pettengill v. Castellow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court holding that three roadside services offered by Big Al's Towing and Recovery were taxable under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 37-15-103(a)(i)(J), holding that the Wyoming Board of Equalization correctly concluded that the roadside services were not taxable under the statute.At issue were Big Al's roadside services for jumping-starting a vehicle, unlocking a vehicle, and replacing a flat tire with a spare tire. The Wyoming Department of Revenue determined that Big Al's owed taxes and interest on the roadside assistance revenue it collected between 2016 to 2019. The Board reversed, concluding that the roadside services did not constitute a taxable event. The district court reversed, ruling that the services were taxable under section 39-15-103(a)(I)(J). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board's decision that Big Al's roadside services were not taxable under the statute was in accordance with law. View "Big Al's Towing & Recovery v. State, Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting the visitation action brought by Grandparents against Parents seeking visitation with their grandchildren, holding that the district court violated Parents' fundamental constitutional right to raise their children as they see fit.Grandparents brought this action under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-7-101(a) after a conflict with Parents. The district court judgment in favor of Grandparents and awarded them the right to open and unmonitored contact with the children and monthly and summer visitation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, when it ordered grandparent visitation, the district court did not adequately protect Parents' fundamental constitutional right to rear their children as they see fit. View "Bowman v. Study" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two counts of felony child endangerment and one count of misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine, holding that the prosecutor's comments during opening and closing statements were not prejudicial to Defendant.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of felony child endangerment and one count of misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. The district court sentenced Defendant to three to five years in prison for the endangerment counts, to run concurrently with each other. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to establish that two almost identical statements made by the prosecutor before trial denied Defendant a substantial right or materially prejudiced his case. View "Lott v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court entering judgment in favor of the Town of Dubois and dismissing Plaintiff's declaratory judgment action against the Town seeking to reclaim 30.17 acres of real property, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Plaintiff sought to reclaim property that the Town previously attempted to condemn but ultimately acquired through a settlement agreement with Plaintiff. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Town. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the settlement agreement satisfied, as a matter of law, the three elements of waiver and did not contravene the public policy behind the Wyoming Eminent Domain Act; and (2) therefore, the Town was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Colton v. Town of Dubois" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting partial summary judgment to the Estate of Gale Iverson (the Estate) on its real property claims against Cherie Davidson-Eaton (Eaton), Mr. Iverson's caregiver, and ordering Eaton to, among other things, provide the Estate with an accounting, holding that there was no error.The Estate filed an action for an accounting and sought to recover property it alleged Eaton unlawfully transferred to herself. In response, Eaton filed a creditor's claim against the Estate, alleging that she had a right to compensation for services she rendered to Mr. Iverson while he was living. The district court consolidated the lawsuits, granted partial summary judgment to the Estate on its real property claims, denied Eaton's claims, found the Estate was entitled to lost rents and profits, and ordered Eaton to provide the Estate with an accounting. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion or act contrary to law. View "Davidson-Eaton v. Iversen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of felony property destruction and defacement, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during his rebuttal argument.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of felony property destruction and defacement. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that a statement made during the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument amounted to misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported the conviction; and (2) the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct during rebuttal closing argument. View "Ogden v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissing Plaintiff's negligence action, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment for Defendants based on Plaintiff's failure to submit a timely notice of claim under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA), Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-39-113.In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that she suffered damages because of the medical treatment she received at a hospital and that she timely submitted a notice of claim as required by the WGCA. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was no dispute of material fact that Plaintiff failed to file or present her notice of claim within two years of the alleged act, error, or omission, as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-39-113(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Defendants based on Plaintiff's failure timely to submit a notice of claim under the WGCA. View "Casey v. Teton County Hospital District" on Justia Law