Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Mother’s motion to set aside the clerk of court’s entry of default against her after she did not respond to the petition of the Department of Family Services to terminate her parental rights within twenty days after service.In denying Mother’s motion, the district court found that Mother did not present good cause to set aside the entry of default. After a default evidentiary hearing, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it applied the three-factor test applied in civil actions to determine a motion to set aside the entry of default judgment and weighed the three factors to deny Mother’s motion to set aside the entry of default against her. View "Hurd v. State, Department of Family Services" on Justia Law

Wyo. Stat. Ann. 27-14-605 does not bar a claimant from receiving temporary total disability benefits for a second compensable injury when he has not filed a claim for benefits on his original injury within four years.Six years after receiving workers’ compensation benefits for a workplace injury to his right knee, James Hall underwent another knee surgery that was approved by the Workers’ Compensation Division. The Division denied Hall’s application for temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, concluding that, under section 27-14-605(b), Hall was not entitled to TTD benefits related to the surgery after not seeking benefits on his original injury for over four years. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), however, concluded that section 27-14-605 did not govern Hall’s claim because Hall suffered a second compensable injury that section 27-14-605 did not control and that Hall was entitled to TTD benefits as a matter of law. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Hall suffered a second compensable injury and was therefore entitled to TTD benefits pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 27-14-404(a). View "In re Worker's Compensation Claim of James A. Hall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action against the Board of County Commissioners of Teton County challenging the Teton County Land Development Regulation prohibiting fractional ownership of campgrounds, holding that the regulation was unenforceable because it exceeded the County’s zoning authority. Specifically, the Court agreed with Plaintiff that the regulation prohibiting fractional ownership did not regulate the use of the land, only its ownership, and was, therefore, beyond the County’s zoning authority and unenforceable. View "Board of County Commissioners of Teton County, Wyoming v. Mackay Investments, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court affirming the decision in favor of Petitioner’s former attorneys (Respondent-law firm) by a panel of the Wyoming State Bar Committee for Resolution of Fee Disputes. The Court held (1) the panel’s conclusion that it was neither unreasonable nor abusive for Respondent to bill its time using minimum increments of fifteen minutes was supported by substantial evidence; and (2) substantial evidence supported the panel’s conclusion that Respondent exercised billing judgment and did not excessively bill Petitioner for substantive and necessary communication between firm members and employees about Petitioner's case. View "Manigault v. Daly & Sorenson, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court affirming the decision in favor of Petitioner’s former attorneys (Respondent-law firm) by a panel of the Wyoming State Bar Committee for Resolution of Fee Disputes. The Court held (1) the panel’s conclusion that it was neither unreasonable nor abusive for Respondent to bill its time using minimum increments of fifteen minutes was supported by substantial evidence; and (2) substantial evidence supported the panel’s conclusion that Respondent exercised billing judgment and did not excessively bill Petitioner for substantive and necessary communication between firm members and employees about Petitioner's case. View "Manigault v. Daly & Sorenson, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the State in this action filed by Mark Gordon in his capacity as the State Treasurer challenging on its face the constitutionality of legislation that created the State Capitol Building Rehabilitation and Restoration Oversight Group (oversight group). In his complaint, Gordon argued that the legislation violated article 3, section 31 and article 2, section 1 of the Wyoming Constitution because, in part, it did not provide for the state treasurer’s approval of contracts for the capitol restoration project. The district court concluded that Gordon failed to establish that the capitol restoration legislation violated the constitution on its face or that the work being done on the project was the type of repair work contemplated by the framers when they adopted article 3, section 31. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the capitol restoration legislation was unconstitutional on its face because it impermissibly transferred the state treasurer’s constitutional authority to approve contracts for “repairing and furnishing the halls and rooms used for the meeting of the legislature and its committees” to others. View "Gordon v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the State in this action filed by Mark Gordon in his capacity as the State Treasurer challenging on its face the constitutionality of legislation that created the State Capitol Building Rehabilitation and Restoration Oversight Group (oversight group). In his complaint, Gordon argued that the legislation violated article 3, section 31 and article 2, section 1 of the Wyoming Constitution because, in part, it did not provide for the state treasurer’s approval of contracts for the capitol restoration project. The district court concluded that Gordon failed to establish that the capitol restoration legislation violated the constitution on its face or that the work being done on the project was the type of repair work contemplated by the framers when they adopted article 3, section 31. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the capitol restoration legislation was unconstitutional on its face because it impermissibly transferred the state treasurer’s constitutional authority to approve contracts for “repairing and furnishing the halls and rooms used for the meeting of the legislature and its committees” to others. View "Gordon v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s entry of an order nunc pro tunc correcting two judgments entered against Defendant in 1998. The Court held (1) the district court had jurisdiction to enter the order nunc pro tunc irrespective of whether the Department of Corrections had standing to challenge the erroneous judgments; (2) there was no merit in Appellant’s claim that the Department of Corrections was required to seek reimbursement pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-6-108; and (3) as to Defendant’s remaining issues on appeal, he provided no cogent argument or pertinent authority to support either of his claims, and therefore, this Court will not consider them. View "Heinemann v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Estate of Charles Fleig in this case challenging the rights in Charles’s checking account at Sunlight Federal Credit Union.Here, Charles and Wendy Fleig executed a signature car to add Wendy to Charles’s checking account at the Credit Union. The signature card failed to indicate whether the account would be subject to rights of survivorship. The membership and account agreement, however, provided that joint accounts had rights of survivorship unless otherwise indicated on the signature card. After Charles died, his Estate sued Wendy and the Credit Union, asserting several causes of action, including a claim for declaratory judgment regarding ownership of the checking account. The district court concluded that the signature card did not create rights of survivorship, that the account was held by Wendy and Charles as tenants in common, and that fifty percent of the account proceeds passed to the Estate and fifty percent passed to Wendy. The Supreme Court reversed, holding Wendy had a right of survivorship in the checking account because the signature card and the membership and account agreement formed the contract between the Fleigs and the Credit Union and unambiguously expressed the intent that joint accounts have rights of survivorship. View "Fleig v. Estate of Charles F. Fleig" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder, holding that, although the district court erred in some respects in instructing the jury, Defendant was not prejudiced by the errors. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court erred when it instructed the jury that Defendant had an absolute duty to retreat before using deadly force, but Defendant was not prejudiced by the instruction; (2) the district court did not violate a clear and unequivocal rule of law in instructing the jury on the mens rea element of second-degree murder; and (3) Defendant was not prejudiced when the district court failed to inform the jury that the State had the burden of proving that Defendant did not act in a sudden heat of passion in order to convict him of second-degree manslaughter. View "Sindelar v. State" on Justia Law