Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Between 2017 and 2023, a woman applied for and received welfare benefits for herself and her three children under three government programs: SNAP, Medicaid, and LIEAP. During this period, she did not list the children’s father as a household member on any of her applications, despite evidence that they lived together. She also failed to disclose several assets, including joint bank accounts, a timeshare, and other real property. An investigation by the Wyoming Department of Family Services revealed these omissions, leading to criminal charges.The State of Wyoming charged her with nineteen counts of welfare fraud, alleging that she knowingly made false statements or omitted material facts on her benefit applications, with each count involving benefits exceeding $500. The case proceeded to a bench trial in the District Court of Carbon County, where the State presented documentary evidence and witness testimony showing the woman and the children’s father shared addresses, held themselves out as a married couple, and jointly owned assets. The district court found her guilty on eighteen counts, concluding she knowingly misrepresented her household composition and failed to disclose assets, which affected her eligibility for benefits. She was sentenced to a split sentence of jail time and probation, with restitution ordered.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. Applying the standard that requires viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the court held that there was ample evidence for the district court to reasonably conclude the woman knowingly omitted the children’s father as a household member and failed to disclose joint assets. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the convictions for eighteen counts of welfare fraud. View "Fitzwater v. State" on Justia Law

Several individuals formed a corporation, each contributing initial capital and later making additional cash contributions to meet the company’s needs. These later contributions were documented as promissory notes, including three notes issued to one founder, which were subsequently held by a trust after his death. The notes specified a 24-month term, a fixed interest rate, and repayment terms, but did not explicitly state they were payable on demand. After the founder’s death, the trust demanded payment on the notes, but the company refused, arguing the notes were not yet due, were actually capital contributions, or were subordinate to other shareholder loans.The District Court of Albany County dismissed claims by other shareholders seeking priority repayment, finding no justiciable controversy, and resolved the remaining issues on summary judgment. The court determined the notes were loans, not capital contributions, and that all founders’ notes should be repaid equitably if any were repaid. However, it found the notes were not immediately due and payable, as they lacked a demand provision, and denied the trust’s request for immediate payment. The court did award attorney fees to the trust under the terms of the notes.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s finding that the notes were not due and payable, holding that the notes matured after 24 months and were enforceable at that time. The court affirmed that the notes were loans, not capital contributions, and declined to give priority to other shareholder loans, finding no contractual basis for subordination. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees to the trust and upheld the dismissal of the other shareholders’ claims for lack of a justiciable controversy. The case was remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the trust and determination of reasonable attorney fees and costs. View "King v. Sheesley" on Justia Law

Burke McCarthy died in October 2018 after receiving medical treatment from Dr. Wesley Hiser at Wyoming Medical Center. Dianna Ellis, McCarthy’s daughter and wrongful death representative, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Dr. Hiser and the hospital in February 2021, within the two-year statute of limitations. However, Dr. Hiser was never served with the original complaint. Nearly two years later, Ellis voluntarily dismissed her suit against Dr. Hiser. In December 2023, she refiled her complaint, relying on Wyoming’s savings statute to argue she had an additional year to commence a new action. Dr. Hiser was served for the first time in February 2024, more than five years after McCarthy’s death.The District Court of Natrona County granted Dr. Hiser’s motion to dismiss the refiled complaint. The court found that it had never obtained jurisdiction over Dr. Hiser in the original action because he was not served, and therefore the savings statute could not apply to extend the time for refiling. Ellis appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Wyoming’s savings statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-118, does not apply to actions that are voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. The court overruled its prior decision in Hugus v. Reeder, 2022 WY 13, which had held that a voluntary dismissal qualified as a “failure otherwise than upon the merits” under the savings statute. The court reasoned that a voluntary dismissal is not a “failure” within the meaning of the statute, as it is a matter of choice rather than an unsuccessful attempt to proceed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Ellis’s refiled complaint. View "Ellis v. Hiser" on Justia Law

Robert Redland's parents accumulated ranching property in the Big Horn Basin, which Robert and his wife, Irene, later purchased. They raised their five children on these properties and created the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust in 1989 to manage the ranch properties. Robert promised his children that all ranch properties would be placed in the trust, except for the Manderson Place, which would be placed in the trust after his and Irene's deaths. In 2007, Robert and Irene sold an 11-acre parcel of the Manderson Place to their daughter Lisa and her husband, Mike Kimsey. The Redland Children discovered that the Manderson Place and other properties were not in the trust and sued Robert and the Kimseys.The District Court of Big Horn County initially ruled that Robert must transfer the disputed properties to the trust, including the 11 acres sold to the Kimseys. However, the court later amended its judgment, removing the requirement for the 11 acres to be transferred to the trust, as the Redland Children had not stated a claim against the Kimseys for the return of the 11 acres. The Redland Children did not appeal this amendment.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision, except for the provision regarding the Manderson Place, which it ordered to be transferred to the trust immediately, subject to a life estate in Robert. The district court then issued a judgment excluding the 11 acres from the trust, which the Redland Children appealed.The Wyoming Supreme Court held that its previous decision did not require the 11 acres to be transferred to the trust and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Redland Children's motions to amend their complaint and for attorney fees. The court affirmed the district court's judgment exempting the 11 acres from being transferred to the trust. View "Redland v. Kimsey" on Justia Law

Tyler James Hill pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter after an incident where he shot Ashley Bartel during an argument involving his mother, Rhonda Bryan. The shooting occurred when Hill produced a small pistol during the altercation, and the gun discharged after Bryan pushed Hill's arm, resulting in Bartel's death. Hill was charged with second-degree murder but later agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. The district court sentenced him to 15 to 20 years imprisonment.The district court of Laramie County denied Hill's motion to continue his sentencing hearing, despite his attorney filing a sentencing memorandum on the day of the hearing. Hill's attorney argued that the delay was due to the short notice and the July 4 holiday. The district court proceeded with the hearing, allowing Hill's attorney to present the contents of the memorandum orally. The court ultimately sentenced Hill to 15 to 20 years imprisonment, finding him not suitable for probation.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hill's motion to continue the sentencing hearing, as the defense counsel was able to present the mitigating evidence orally during the hearing. Additionally, the court found that Hill did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, as he could not demonstrate that the outcome of his sentencing would have been different if the memorandum had been filed earlier. The court concluded that Hill was not prejudiced by his counsel's performance. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

Barbie Jean Schwinn and Deborah Schwinn Bailey filed a lawsuit against Robert Schwinn, TJ Schwinn, and Terry Ann Palazzo to wind up and terminate the Ignaz Schwinn Family Partnership Co. The district court found that the appellants wrongfully dissociated from the partnership, there were no grounds to terminate or wind up the partnership, and the appellants could no longer participate in the management of the partnership. The court granted the appellants a lien against the partnership’s assets for their interests, to be satisfied when the partnership eventually wound up.The district court held a bench trial and dismissed the appellants' claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court also dismissed the appellants' claims to dissolve and wind up the partnership, finding it was a partnership for a definite term or particular undertaking under Illinois law. The court determined the appellants' dissociation was wrongful and that they were not entitled to payment for their interests until the completion of the undertaking. The court denied the appellees' other counterclaims.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the partnership was an at-will partnership, not one for a particular undertaking. The court held that the appellants' dissociation was not wrongful and that their withdrawal triggered the dissolution and winding up of the partnership under Section 801(1) of the Revised Uniform Partnership Act (RUPA). The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the partnership agreement varied the RUPA's default rules and whether winding up was required under Section 801(5)(iii) due to a deadlock in management. The court also instructed the district court to determine if judicial supervision of the winding up was warranted. View "Schwinn v. Schwinn" on Justia Law

Michael Isreal Robin, Sr. was convicted by a jury on multiple counts, including theft of a vehicle, possession of cocaine, property destruction, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of marijuana. The appeal focuses solely on the conviction for theft of a vehicle. Robin contends that the State of Wyoming presented insufficient evidence to prove he exercised control over the vehicle without the owner's authorization.The District Court of Laramie County held a two-day jury trial in November 2024. The State called two witnesses: the investigating officer and the vehicle's owner, Gloria Landeroz. Officer Maljian testified about the surveillance and subsequent high-speed chase that led to Robin's arrest. Landeroz testified that she had loaned the vehicle to Robin but expected it to be returned before the day of the crash. She was uncertain about the exact dates but clarified that Robin did not have permission to use the vehicle on the day of the incident. Robin's motion for a judgment of acquittal was denied by the district court, and the jury found him guilty of vehicle theft.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case, focusing on whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The court noted that the standard of review requires assuming the State's evidence is true and giving the State the benefit of every favorable inference. The court found that Landeroz's testimony, despite her memory issues, provided sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Robin did not have authorization to use the vehicle at the time of the incident. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a reasonable jury could have found Robin guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. View "Robin v. State" on Justia Law

Logan Gregory Gosselin pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a child and was sentenced to three to eight years in prison, with a recommendation for the Youthful Offender Transition Program (YOTP). Nearing completion of the YOTP, Gosselin filed a motion for sentence reduction, which the district court denied. Gosselin appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights by not honoring an earlier promise to reduce his sentence upon successful completion of the YOTP.The district court of Laramie County initially sentenced Gosselin and included a written judgment suggesting an expectation of sentence reduction if he completed the YOTP. However, the judge who issued the original sentence retired, and a new judge denied Gosselin's motion for sentence reduction without a hearing. Gosselin's appeal contended that the denial was an abuse of discretion and violated his due process and double jeopardy rights.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court clarified that the written judgment's language about an "expectation" of sentence reduction did not constitute a binding promise. The court also determined that the district court's oral pronouncement did not guarantee a sentence reduction but merely indicated that Gosselin would likely return to court to request it. The Supreme Court held that the district court's denial of the motion did not violate Gosselin's due process rights, as there was no protected interest in a guaranteed sentence reduction. Additionally, the court found no double jeopardy violation, as the denial of the motion did not increase Gosselin's original sentence. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Gosselin v. State" on Justia Law

A detective from the Cheyenne Police Department investigated a break-in and vehicle theft at Swagger Construction on October 10, 2023. The project manager reported missing items, including a company truck and flatbed trailer, and noted "Claim Ins" written on a calendar. The security footage was also missing. The detective later found the stolen trailer on someone's property, loaded with tools, equipment, and a Jeep registered to Andrew Michael Hanson. Hanson was arrested for leaving the scene of an accident while driving the stolen truck. The detective found the missing security footage in the truck, which showed Hanson entering the building through a window and taking items.The State charged Hanson with burglary and felony theft. At trial, the State presented testimony from the arresting officer, the project manager, and the detective, and introduced the security footage as evidence. Hanson moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence that he acted without authority. The district court denied the motion, and the jury found Hanson guilty on both counts. He was sentenced to two to four years of incarceration, suspended in favor of three years of probation.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Hanson acted without authority. The court held that the State provided strong circumstantial evidence, including the project manager's testimony, the security footage, and the detective's findings. The court affirmed Hanson's convictions, concluding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reasonably infer that Hanson acted without authority. View "Hanson v. State" on Justia Law

Thomas Hamann brought a lawsuit against Heart Mountain Irrigation District (HMID) and its manager, Randy Watts, alleging that HMID, through Watts' actions, damaged his property and caused him bodily injury. Hamann sought damages based on claims of inverse condemnation and violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of HMID and Watts, dismissing Hamann’s lawsuit entirely. Hamann appealed only the dismissal of his inverse condemnation claim against HMID.The district court found that HMID had not taken any official action to authorize Watts to enter Hamann’s property beyond the limited scope of work on the Riolo bowl, which Hamann had consented to. The court held that without such authorization, Hamann’s inverse condemnation claim could not survive summary judgment. Hamann argued that there was a material issue of fact regarding whether Watts was acting under the scope, authority, and direction of HMID’s board.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the extent of Watts’ authority and whether his actions were authorized by HMID. The court noted that HMID’s bylaws allowed for delegation of responsibilities to its manager and other agents, and there was evidence suggesting that Watts had general discretion as HMID’s manager. Additionally, there was conflicting testimony about whether Watts had specific authorization to access Hamann’s property beyond the Riolo bowl.The court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to HMID, as there were unresolved factual issues regarding the authorization of Watts’ actions and the extent of damage to Hamann’s property due to activities on adjoining land. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hamann v. Heart Mountain Irrigation District" on Justia Law