Court Opinion

ID: 9784923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:57:36.67731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:01.050738
License: Public Domain

HILL, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 31] On rare occasions, we will find a contract void because it violates public policy:
We will not invalidate a contract entered into freely by competent parties on the basis of public policy unless that policy is well settled, unambiguous and not in conflict with another public policy equally or more compelling.
Sinclair Oil Corporation v. Columbia Casualty Company, 682 P.2d 975, 979 (Wyo.1984); see also Combs v. Sherry-Combs, 865 P.2d 50, 54 (Wyo.1993); and Hamburg v. Hansen, 683 P.2d 662, 662-63 (Wyo.1984). The public policy concern implicated here is the development of the State’s underground water resources. As demonstrated by the events of this past summer, it is difficult to imagine a more important public policy issue in Wyoming than the continued viability of its water resources. Accordingly, I do not believe this issue should have been decided on a summary judgment motion. If the Agreement violates public policy, then it is void or, at a minimum, voidable, and the doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and judicial es-toppel should not be a barrier to effectuating that policy. Since this matter was deter-
*1266the specific public policy questions raised by Polo Ranch. mined by summary judgment, the record is not developed sufficiently for a determination of whether the Agreement violates a public policy of this state. Therefore, I would remand the matter for proceedings to address