Summary 2011 WY 6

Summary of Decision January 11, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Williams v. City of Gillette, Wyoming

Citation: 2011 WY 6

Docket Number: S-10-0070

URL: http://tinyurl.com/69dtmgy

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Bruce B. Williams, pro se.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Kate M. Fox and Amanda K. Ferguson of Davis and Cannon, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: January 19, 2011

Facts: Appellant appeals an Order Dismissing Case for Lack of Standing entered by the district court of Campbell County on March 18, 2010. Appellant contends that the district court’s conclusion that he lacked standing to commence suit against the City of Gillette (City) as well as its 22,221 eligible voting citizens for damaging his freedom of speech, is erroneous.

Issues: Whether the district court erred when it dismissed Appellant’s complaint for lack of standing.

Holdings: The Court concludes that Appellant does not have standing to bring this appeal. He was not a party to the events he claims violated his freedom of speech. He was not in the car when the original incident took place and was never cited with any ticket. In fact, Appellant was only aware of the events surrounding the incident after reading a newspaper article. The mere fact that he read a newspaper article does not vest him with the status of party.

Appellant cannot demonstrate how his right to freedom of speech has been damaged in any way. In fact, Plaintiff has expressed his disapproval of the incident through various opinion pieces he has authored in the newspaper. Because his alleged injury is speculative in nature, Appellant lacks a sufficient interest to present the Court with a justiciable controversy. Affirmed.

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the court.