Court Opinion

ID: 9788636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:13:24.220602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:15.262140
License: Public Domain

HILL, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
[¶ 20] The application of W.R.C.P. 6(e)(2) in these circumstances is, without a doubt, harsh and predecessors of that rule have had similarly harsh impacts on litigants in the past. There are precedents from which we might have tailored a less unforgiving imperative than that set out in the majority opinion. See, e.g., Blake v. Rupe, 651 P,2d 1096, 1115 (Wyo.1982). ' However, it does appear that that was the clear intent of the authors of the most recent version of the “deemed denied” rule, and practitioners could discern that. As written, the rule makes no mention of a continuance, whether in written form or as it might be gleaned from tacit material.
[¶ 21] I concur with the result reached by the majority opinion because adoption of a “tacit” exception to the deemed denied rule would result in the same old uncertainty that used to exist. I take some solace from the harshness of this result in my conviction that, having carefully reviewed the merits of all issues raised by Paxton, this Justice would have held for Brannaman in this appeal in any event.