Opinion ID: 2637904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: [¶ 12] It is well recognized that summary judgment is proper only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hovendick v. Ruby, 10 P.3d 1119, 1122 (Wyo.2000); Mountain Cement Company v. Johnson, 884 P.2d 30, 32 (Wyo. 1994). This court reviews a summary judgment in the same light as the district court, utilizing the same materials and following the same standards. Hovendick, 10 P.3d at 1122. The record is examined from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and that party is given the benefit of all favorable inferences which may fairly be drawn from the record. Id.; Four Nines Gold, Inc. v. 71 Construction, Inc., 809 P.2d 236, 238 (Wyo.1991). The propriety of granting a summary judgment motion depends upon the correctness of the court's dual findings that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Bender v. Phillips, 8 P.3d 1074, 1077 (Wyo.2000). Questions of law are reviewed de novo without affording deference to the district court's decision. Boley v. Greenough, 2001 WY 47, ¶ 10, 22 P.3d 854, ¶ 10 (2001).
[¶ 13] When a trial court in a bench trial makes express findings of fact and conclusions of law, we review the factual determinations under a clearly erroneous standard and the legal conclusions de novo. Rennard v. Vollmar, 977 P.2d 1277, 1279 (Wyo.1999); see also Cross v. Berg Lumber Company, 7 P.3d 922, 928 (Wyo.2000); Fremont Homes, Inc. v. Elmer, 974 P.2d 952, 958 (Wyo.1999); Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic, Inc., 861 P.2d 531, 538 (Wyo.1993). This court does not weigh the evidence de novo; therefore, findings may not be set aside because we would have reached a different result. Cross, 7 P.3d at 928; Shores v. Lindsey, 591 P.2d 895, 899 (Wyo.1979). Moreover, the appellant bears the burden of persuading the appellate court that the finding is erroneous. Cross, 7 P.3d at 928; 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2585 (1995).