Source: http://wyolawlibrary.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2015-08-30 19:56:21
Document Index: 378341510

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 27', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 27', '§ 1', '§ 27']

Law Library Letter: December 2006
Kathy & Meg are both out of the library. When they return, they will write up summaries for these cases. In the meantime, the cases have been loaded and you may view them in full text through the Law Library cases database (http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/). ======================================== Link: http://tinyurl.com/y5l2lz Decision issued: December 28, 2006 Case Name: JAMES URIAH RAMSDELL V. THE STATE OF WYOMING Citation: 2006 WY 159 Docket Number: 05-161 Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, The Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge Representing Appellant (Petitioner/Plaintiff/Defendant): Ken Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Tina N. Kerin, Senior Assistant Public Defender. Representing Appellee (Respondents/Defendant/Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; David Delicath, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Issues: Mr. Ramsdell presents the following issues: Did the trial court err in not dismissing the probation revocation, with prejudice, due to lack of timely hearing? Did the trial court err in revoking probation, when presented with uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Ramsdell was unable to pay? The State presents an additional issue: Does this Court have jurisdiction to consider whether the trial court erred by dismissing the August 17, 2004, probation revocation petition without prejudice? Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the court. ----------------------------------------------- Link: http://tinyurl.com/y72gaw Decision issued: December 28, 2006 Case Name: CHRISTOPHER RADER V. SUGARLAND ENTERPRISES, INC., a Wyoming corporation, d/b/a Holiday Inn Citation: 2006 WY 160 Docket Number: 06-20 Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, The Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge Representing Appellant (Petitioner/Plaintiff/Defendant): J. Douglas McCalla and Tyson E. Logan of The Spence Law Firm, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Logan. Representing Appellee (Respondents/Defendant/Plaintiff): Timothy W. Miller of Casper, Wyoming. Issues: The parties agree that the controlling issue on appeal is whether Sugarland owed a legal duty to Rader under the specific factual circumstances of this case. Judge Brooks delivered the opinion for the court. ----------------------------------------------- Link: http://tinyurl.com/yys5an Decision issued: December 28, 2006 Case Name: DOUGLAS MORRISON, CHARLES W. SMITH, and RONALD HANSEN, in their representative capacities as Trustees of the Newell B. Sargent 1990 Living Trust V. FORREST L. CLAY and F. KELLY CLAY Citation: 2006 WY 161 Docket Number: 05-281, 06-21 Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, The Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge Representing Appellant (Petitioner/Plaintiff/Defendant): Judith Studer and Rick L. Koehmstedt, of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. Representing Appellee (Respondents/Defendant/Plaintiff): Patrick Murphy, of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming. Issues: The Trust identifies the following issues for review: 1. Should an unsigned arbitration award that violated Wyoming Statutes and the parties’ agreement be vacated? 2. Do clear violations of the code of ethics governing the arbitration [constitute] “undue means” and/or “misconduct” that requires the arbitration award be vacated? A. Did the court apply an incorrect standard by requiring the plaintiffs show actual prejudice by clear and convincing evidence? B. Did the court abuse its discretion in not allowing Professor Burman to opine the arbitrator’s failure to make the necessary disclosures as a violation of the code of ethics? 3. Did the arbitrators exceed their authority? If so, does such action require that the award be vacated? A. Did the failure to conduct the arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association Rules, as agreed to by the parties, constitute a basis to vacate the award? B. Did the use of minority and marketing discounts to determine value of the stock, in violation of the stock purchase agreement, exceed the authority of the arbitrators, and therefore require the court to vacate the award? 4. Did the court improperly award attorneys’ fees? A. Did the limited provision in the settlement agreement that allowed for recovery of attorneys’ fees apply? B. Did defendants’ failure to identify and segregate attorneys’ fees and costs prohibit an award of fees? The Clays state several issues. Two are pertinent to our resolution: 1. Is this appeal moot because appellants failed to challenge the district court’s determination that they had contractually waived their right to appeal the arbitration award? 2. If this appeal is not moot, does appellants’ waiver of any right to appeal the arbitration award nonetheless require summary affirmation of the district court’s order? Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the court. ----------------------------------------------- Link: http://tinyurl.com/y7wj9w Decision issued: December 28, 2006 Case Name: SUSAN KAYE CRACKENBERGER V. THE STATE OF WYOMING Citation: 2006 WY 162 Docket Number: 05-192 Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, The Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge Representing Appellant (Petitioner/Plaintiff/Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Diane Courselle, Defender Aid Program Director; Suzannah B. Gambell, Student Intern; and Skip S. Reynolds, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Reynolds. Representing Appellee (Respondents/Defendant/Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Matthew D. Obrecht, Student Intern; and Mackenzie Williams, Student Intern.Argument by Mr. Williams. Issues: Whether the district court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress evidence because the information provided by named informants was unreliable, had no basis of knowledge, or was stale. Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the court. Posted by
Summary of Decision issued December 20, 2006[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.] Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.Case Name: Haney v. Cribbs and DRM, Inc.Citation: 2006 WY 158Docket Number: 05-279 & 06-69Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable John Perry, JudgeRepresenting Appellants (Plaintiffs): Jeremy D. Michaels of Michaels & Michaels, P.C., Gillette, Wyoming; and Heather Noble, Jackson, Wyoming.Representing Appellees (Defendants): Patrick J. Murphy and Michael J. Lansing of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.Issue: Case No. 05-279: In a case involving personal injuries to an employee covered by worker’s compensation against third party tortfeasors where notice to the State of Wyoming is required under W.S. § 27-14-105(b), did the district court err in dismissing the case when the State received a copy of the complaint by regular mail, rather than certified mail return receipt requested. Case No. 06-69: The certified questions to be answered were: Does the savings statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-118, apply to allow a plaintiff to refile a personal injury case which was filed within the time afforded by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-105(a)(iv)(c) (for 4 years) of the accident, but which was eventually dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the action is refiled within one year of the dismissal of the original action but not within four years of the date of the action causing the injury. Rule 3(a) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” For the purposes of invoking the savings statute, is a lawsuit “commenced” by mere filing, even where, as here, a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction within the statutory period for the bringing of the action.Holding: In June 2001, RaNaye Haney (RH) was struck from the rear while driving a City of Gillette garbage truck by a truck driven by an employee of DRM. She received worker’s compensation benefits. Days before the statute of limitations expired in 2005, the Haneys filed a complaint against DRM seeking to recover all damages suffered in the accident. The district court dismissed the complaint because it was served on the Wyoming Attorney General and the Director of the Wyoming Department of Employment by regular U.S. mail rather than by certified mail return receipt requested. The Haneys later filed a renewed and identical complaint and properly served on it on the attorney general and the director. The Haneys then urged the district court to submit two certified questions to the Court which are Case No. 06-69.Case No. 05-279 Standard of Review: The district court ruled as a matter of law that the Haneys’ complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court reviews a question of law de novo. Was Actual Receipt of Notice of the Lawsuit Adequate in Light of the State’s Interest in this Litigation? The legislature’s decision to require that service be accomplished by certified mail on the attorney general and the department is not designed to protect torfeasors from suit by an injured employee but to protect the State’s interest in its share of any recovery. In Terex, the Court decided that although § 27-14-105(b) imposed no time limit in which service had to be accomplished, a reasonable time needed to be prescribed. The Court turned to W.R.C.P.3(a) and concluded that such service must be achieved within sixty days of the filing of the complaint. Under Terex, the instant action was not deemed commenced until service was actually perfected. Service was not perfected until after the expiration of the statute of limitations and therefore, the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The Court declined to treat the notices at issue as “substantial compliance.” Case No. 06-69: (Certified Questions) Whether Wyoming’s savings statute operated to “save” the Haneys refiled complaint from being dismissed. The complaint was refiled on October 31, 2005 and thereafter properly served on the attorney general and the department. If the savings statute does apply, the Haneys had one year in which to commence a new action. That year began to run from the date on which the district court dismissed their original action (October 26, 2005.) The action commenced on October 31, 2005 readily meets that deadline. The Haney’s action was filed in due time. And it failed other than “on the merits.” Relying on their opinions in Clause and Hoke, the Court stated the Haneys may commence a new action within one year after the date of the failure of their original action. In Hoke the Court concluded that the benefits of the savings statute did not rescue Hoke from her plight, but the Court did so for reasons that were not applicable to the Haneys’ circumstances. The instant case differs from Hoke and Rosa in that all parties entitled to notice of the lawsuit were given ample notice of it. The pivotal difference is that the district court had jurisdiction of the case art the time the case was field. Section 27-14-105(b) is unambiguous in its language that “service of the complaint on the director and attorney general is a jurisdictional requirement in order to maintain the suit.” The Court stated the jurisdictional issue in the instant case was not traditional subject matter jurisdiction nor was it one of personal jurisdiction. The Court noted that the service rules only speak in terms of service on a defendant and in this action, the State was not a defendant. The savings statute does allow a plaintiff to refile a personal injury case which was filed within the time afforded by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-105(a)(iv)(C) of the accident, but which was eventually dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because of restrictions found in § 27-14-105(b), where the action is refiled within one year of the dismissal of the original action. The Court stated it was unnecessary for them to answer the second certified question. The matter was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.Affirmed.J. Hill delivered the opinion and answer.Link: http://tinyurl.com/wlt2g .
The library closed at Noon on Wednesday, Dec. 20, due to blizzard conditions in the Cheyenne area. We expect to be open on Thursday, Dec. 21; however, probably not before 10:00AM since most State offices in Cheyenne will open again at that time. If you have a question, please leave a message (voice mail, online form, email) and we will return your contact as soon as possible.