Court Opinion

ID: 9528474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:41:28.658955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:54.104055
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring specially.
I recognize that, by their statement of issues and their arguments, the Appellants invited the court to dispose of certain issues in their favor. Consequently, they should not be heard to complain if some of those issues are decided adversely. Nevertheless, I am disposed to the view that, when confronted with an appeal from a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), W.R.C.P., the only function of this court is to determine whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. In making that determination, the court must accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint. E.g., Mummery v. Polk, 770 P.2d 241 (Wyo.1989); Champion Well Service, Inc. v. NL Industries, 769 P.2d 382 (Wyo.1989); Matthews v. Wyoming De*816partment of Agriculture, 719 P.2d 216 (Wyo.1986); and Carbon County School District No. 2 v. Wyoming State Hospital, 680 P.2d 773 (Wyo.1984). While I recognize that there is judicial economy and efficiency in addressing the issues briefed and argued by the parties, I would hold in this case simply that the complaint alleged facts that, if accepted as true, state a claim upon which relief could be granted. I then would reverse and remand for development of the record with respect to any collateral issues prior to deciding those issues.
I agree that the case should be reversed, but the ground for the reversal, in my opinion, should be only that the complaint alleged facts sufficient to state a claim. I would then not address the other issues urged by the parties.