Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court reversing the decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) awarding Plaintiff permanent partial disability benefits (PPD) after she injured her back and left hip while working as a registered nurse, holding that the district court did not err.The OAH awarded Plaintiff benefits after finding that she had made a tangible effort to seek suitable employment given her health, education, training, and experience. The district court reversed, finding that Plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence that she actively sought work and did not present expert medical testimony showing she was incapable of working. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OAH decision was not supported by substantial evidence because Plaintiff did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there was no suitable work given her health. View "McBride v. State, ex rel. Department of Workforce Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that PNS Stores, Inc. d/b/a Big Lots breached a lease with Capital City Properties, LLC and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding that the district court did not err by finding that Big Lots breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.Capital City and Big Lots entered into a lease that required Capital City to deliver commercial property to Big Lots by a certain date. Capital City later filed a complaint against Big Lots alleging breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Big Lots counterclaimed for breach of the lease. The district court found in favor of Capital City on both of its claims and awarded damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "PNS Stores, Inc. v. Capital City Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Appellant's post-sentence motions to withdraw his no contest pleas in two separate dockets, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motions to withdraw his no contest pleas.In one docket, Appellant was charged with one count of burglary. In the other docket, Appellant was charged with one count each of attempted murder and aggravated assault. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered a plea of no contest to attempted voluntary manslaughter and burglary. After the sentence was imposed, Appellant unsuccessfully filed motions to withdraw substitution of counsel in both dockets, motions requesting to withdraw his pleas of no contest, and motions in arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant's motions to withdraw his no contest pleas, holding that there was no abuse of discretion. View "Sena v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that the Spence Group lacked standing to bring the underlying derivative action, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the Spence Group failed to show it did not have an adequate remedy at law.The dispute in this case was between two factions of the former Board of Directors of the Wyoming Trial Lawyers College - the Spence Group and the Sloan Group. The Spence Group brought a derivative action against the Sloan Group and the College alleging that some or all of the Sloan Group directors should be removed from the Board and seeking a declaration that the Spence Group members were the only duly acting members. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted the Sloan Group summary judgment on its claim that the Spence Group lacked standing to bring its derivative action. View "Spence v. Sloan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Carol and John Kennedys' guardianships of two children, including MCM, holding that the district court did not err in terminating the Kennedys' guardianship of MCM and granting guardianship to Jessica and Gilbert Padilla pursuant to 3-3-1101(a)(iv).In 2015, a Colorado court removed GAP, MCM, and EJM from the Padillas' custody and placed them in foster care. The Padillas were GAP's biological parents and MCM's and EJM's relatives and former guardians. In 2016, the court granted guardianship of the three children to the Kennedys, Gilbert's sister and husband. In 2020, the Padillas filed a petition in a Wyoming court to terminate the Kennedys' guardianships. The court terminated the Kennedys' guardianship of GAP and MCM and granted guardianship of MCM to the Padillas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it (1) terminated the Kennedys' guardianship of GAP; and (2) terminated the Kennedys' guardianship of MCM and granted guardianship to the Padillas. View "Kennedy v. Padilla" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the judgment of the Board of County Commissioners of Park County approving Trial County Telephone Association, Inc.'s (TCT) application for a special use permit to construct a 150-foot broadband communications tower in Park County, holding that the Board did not arbitrarily or capriciously in approving the application.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the Board had a rational basis to conclude that the proposed was not oversized, and therefore, the Board's approval of TCT's application did not violate Park County development regulations; and (2) the Park County regulations did not require the Board to consider alternative sites for a project before approving a special use permit, and it therefore did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in approving the application without considering alternative locations for the proposed tower. View "Jolovich v. Board of County Commissioners of Park County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court adjudicating JP delinquent and the corresponding order of disposition, holding that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed timely to demand a jury trial.The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that seventeen-year-old JP inflicted sexual intrusion on a thirteen-year-old girl. After a hearing, the juvenile court found that JP committed a delinquent act and sentenced him to one year of juvenile probation. On appeal, JP argued that he was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to timely demand a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that JP failed to show the outcome of his case would have been different if it had been tried to a jury. View "JP v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of sexual assault in the third degree, holding that the district court did not err when it allowed the State to amend the felony information before submitting the case to the jury.The State charged Defendant by felony information with three identical counts of sexual assault in the third degree. Before trial, the district court asked the State to differentiate the charges, but the court did not act immediately on the request. After the State's presentation of evidence Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the felony information did not differentiate between the counts. The district court denied the motion and granted the State's motion to amend the felony information. After Defendant was convicted he appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to amend the felony information during trial; and (2) Defendant's substantial rights were not prejudiced by the amendment. View "Roberts v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to the maximum term of fifteen to twenty years for aggravated vehicular homicide and a concurrent six months for driving under the influence, holding that the district court plainly erred when it considered Defendant's silence and community expectations in sentencing her.On appeal, Defendant argued that her constitutional right to a fair sentence was violated when the district court "emphasized, and likely punished, her decision to exercise her constitutional rights at the time of her arrest" and when the court expressed that "the severity of the sentence depended upon the county in which it presided over her." The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing, holding that the district court erroneously incorporated constitutionally-prohibited factors into its sentencing decision and that the application of those constitutionally-prohibited factors in sentencing undermined the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings. View "Jewkes v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court modifying Father's child support order and ordering Father to pay $4,596.71 in child support arrears, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.In 2012, the district court entered an order establishing custody and support for Father's and Mother's children. The Department of Family Services, Child Support Enforcement Division later filed a petition to modify Father's child support order. Father answered, requesting that he be relieved of his child support arrears. The district court denied Father's request for relief, modified the child support order, and ordered Father to pay child support arrears. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Father's request for relief from the 2012 child support order. View "Carroll v. State ex rel. Department of Family Services" on Justia Law