2006 WY 159, 2006 WY 160, 2006 WY 161, 2006 WY 162
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
Citation: 2006 WY 159
Docket Number: 05-161
Appeal from the
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
Citation: 2006 WY 160
Docket Number: 06-20
Appeal from the
Representing Appellant (Petitioner/Plaintiff/Defendant): J. Douglas McCalla and Tyson E. Logan of The Spence Law Firm, LLC,
Representing Appellee (Respondents/Defendant/Plaintiff): Timothy W. Miller of
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
Representing Appellant (Petitioner/Plaintiff/Defendant): Judith Studer and Rick L. Koehmstedt, of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC,
Representing Appellee (Respondents/Defendant/Plaintiff): Patrick Murphy, of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C.,
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
Citation: 2006 WY 162
Docket Number: 05-192
Appeal from the
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment