Friday, December 21, 2012

Summary 2012 WY 165

Summary of Decision December 21, 2012

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF THE PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: SMH, KDH, MJH, and APH, MINOR CHILDREN. HMH, a/k/a HM and HB v. STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES.

Docket Numbers: S-12-0094

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Johnson County, Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge.

Representing Appellant: John C. Abraham, Liberty Law Offices, P.C., Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Kucera.

Guardian Ad Litem: Stacey L. Obrecht and Dan S. Wilde, Wyoming Guardian Ad Litem Program, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Wilde.

Date of Decision: December 21, 2012

Facts: Appellant, HMH (Mother), appealed from the district court’s order terminating her parental rights pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (a)(v). She contended there was insufficient evidence to support the district court’s decision.

Issues: Mother presents the following issue for our consideration:

Was the district court’s finding that parental rights to the minor children should be terminated established by clear and convincing evidence?

The Department of Family Services (DFS) and the children’s guardian ad litem state the issue in a substantially similar manner.

Holdings: Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to DFS, the Court found clear and convincing evidence to establish that Mother is unfit to care for her children. The evidence showed that Mother could not possibly meet the mental and emotional needs of her children while refusing to acknowledge that they were afraid of EW and that they did not want to live with him. While the Court noted that Mother’s minimization of the children’s fears was harmful to the children regardless of whether their allegations of abuse were true, they found that the evidence strongly suggested that the children were, in fact, abused by EW, and that he therefore posed a direct threat to the safety and well-being of Mother’s children. Again, however, notwithstanding the veracity of the children’s allegations, Mother’s refusal to address her children’s concerns and her failure to recognize the damage caused by her continued association with EW shows that she is not fit to care for her children. Further, the evidence clearly indicated that Mother has not been able to maintain sobriety, despite multiple attempts by DFS to help her obtain treatment. Mother’s continued drug and alcohol abuse further demonstrated that she is not fit to care for her children. In light of this evidence, the Court found that termination of parental rights is justified under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v). As a result, the Court did not consider whether termination was also warranted under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii). Affirmed.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Summary 2012 WY 164

Summary of Decision December 21, 2012

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and Remanded. Justice Hill filed a specially concurring opinion.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: RANDY W. HOFFMAN, v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Numbers: S-12-0092

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable David B. Park, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Peter J. Timbers of Schwartz, Bon, Walker, Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: December 21, 2012

Facts: Randy W. Hoffman injured his back while working in 1994. As a result, he had three back surgeries between 1995 and 2004. The Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Division (the Division) paid him benefits for the injury and associated treatment. In 2009, he fell on the ice at his home and underwent a fourth back surgery. Claiming that the surgery was connected to his original work injury, Mr. Hoffman sought benefits. The Division denied his claim. After a hearing, the Medical Commission (the Commission) upheld the denial, concluding that Mr. Hoffman had failed to prove the 2009 surgery was causally connected to his 1994 work injury. Mr. Hoffman filed a petition for review in district court, which affirmed the denial. In his appeal to this Court, Mr. Hoffman asserted the Commission’s decision was arbitrary, capricious and not in accordance with the law because the evidence overwhelmingly showed the fourth surgery was causally connected to his work injury.

Issues: Mr. Hoffman presents the following issue for this Court’s determination:

1. Whether the order denying benefits for Mr. Hoffman’s Second Fusion was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law.

The Division asserts substantial evidence supported the Commission’s decision.

Holdings: The Court concluded that when the proper legal standard was applied, the Commission’s determination was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The Court, therefore, reversed and remanded for proceedings in accordance with this decision.

Justice Hill specially concurred. To read the full opinion and concurrence, see the URL link above.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Summary 2012 WY 163

Summary of Decision December 21, 2012

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed in part. Remanded in part.

Case Name: WILSON ADVISORY COMMITTEE, a Wyoming Nonprofit Corporation v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING and C&J, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Corporation.

Docket Numbers: S-12-0095

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, Honorable Timothy C. Day, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Peter F. Moyer, Esq., Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Board of County Commissioners, Teton County, Wyoming: Nicole G. Krieger, Deputy County Attorney, Teton County Attorney’s Office, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee C&J, LLC: No appearance.

Date of Decision: December 21, 2012

Facts: The Teton County Board of Commissioners (the Board) approved a Final Development Plan Application by C&J, LLC (C&J). C&J owns 2.04 acres of property in Wilson, Wyoming. The northern portion of the property is zoned for commercial use, while the southern portion is zoned for a single-family residence. The plan approved by the Board allowed C&J to construct five residential units and one affordable housing unit in the single-family residential zone. It also allowed commercial parking and other commercial uses. The number of residential units permitted has since been reduced to four. Appellant Wilson Advisory Committee, a non-profit corporation representing citizens concerned about the development of Wilson, petitioned the district court for review. The district court affirmed the Board’s decision, and the Wilson Advisory Committee appealed.

Issues: 1. Did the approved plan’s increase of the overall residential density of the southern tract violate Teton County’s Land Development Regulations?

2. Did the Board make the findings required by its Land Development Regulations as a predicate to allowing more intense use of the single-family residential portion of a dual-zoned property?

3. If so, were the Board’s findings arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law?

Holdings: The Court remanded the matter to the district court with instructions to further remand to the Board to decide whether or not the proposed location and density improves scenic views and lessens adverse environmental impacts and if the record before the Board supports findings required by LDR § 2560.A.1.f. The Court affirmed the district court as to all other issues presented by the appeal.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Summary 2012 WY 162

Summary of Decision December 20, 2012


Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the Court. Dismissed.

Case Names: MATTHEW C. KURTENBACH v. THE STATE OF WYOMING.

Docket Numbers: S-11-0262

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Weston County, Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge.

Representing Appellants: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender Program.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: December 20, 2012

Facts: On September, 18, 2008, this Court affirmed Matthew Kurtenbach’s conviction for making a false written statement to obtain property. On May 20, 2011, Kurtenbach filed in district court a motion entitled “Motion to Execute Sentence.” The district court denied Kurtenbach’s motion, and Kurtenbach appealed that denial.

Issues: Kurtenbach presents the following issue on appeal:

Should the district court’s sentence be ordered to be executed to give effect to subsequent sentences in other jurisdictions and to avoid an illegal sentence?

Holdings: The Court concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the “Motion to Execute Sentence,” and therefore this Court likewise did not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Summary 2012 WY 161

Summary of Decision December 20, 2012


Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Names: KYLE F. REGAN v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

JOSEPH B. PARSONS v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Docket Numbers: S-12-0074; S-12-0075

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge.

Representing Appellants: R. Michael Vang of Fleener & Vang, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Michael T. Kahler, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: December 20, 2012

Facts: This opinion encompasses two separate appeals from two separate appellants, but both appeals challenged the implied consent advisement as affected by the same Laramie ordinance. While the appeals have not been consolidated, we join them for the purposes of opinion.

Kyle Regan and Joseph Parsons, in separate incidents, were both arrested for driving while under the influence (DWUI). Following their arrests, each appellant consented to chemical testing. Regan’s test showed that he had a 0.26 percent blood alcohol concentration, and Parsons’ test showed that he had a 0.16 percent blood alcohol concentration. Based on the test results, each appellant had his driver’s license administratively suspended. Each appellant likewise challenged the administrative suspension, claiming that his consent to chemical testing was invalid because he had been threatened with jail time under a local Laramie ordinance if he did not consent to the testing. In each case, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) issued an order upholding the suspension, and each appellant appealed that order.

Issues: Regan and Parsons both present the same issues on appeal:

I. This matter should be stayed pending resolution of pending declaratory judgment action involving enforcement of Laramie Municipal Ordinance 1592.

II. [Were Appellants] read proper implied consent advisements after being arrested for a DWUI under Laramie Enrolled Ordinance 1592?

III. Does the creation of minimum mandatory jail time for an alleged refusal to submit to a chemical test under Laramie’s new DWUI constitute a “critical stage” for purposes of application of the Wyoming right to an attorney and distinguish the case from Mogard v. City of Laramie, 2001 WY 88, ¶¶ 26-31, 32 P.3d 313, 324-25 (Wyo. 2001)?

IV. Are Laramie’s new drinking and driving laws in conflict with State law and therefore preempted?

Holdings: The OAH ruled in accordance with law in determining that Regan and Parsons were given the statutorily required implied consent advisements, and it properly declined to rule on their remaining contentions as beyond the scope of the administrative proceeding and outside the jurisdiction of the OAH. Affirmed.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Summary 2012 WY 160

Summary of Decision December 19, 2012

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Names: RAYMOND SANDOVAL v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STACEY NELSON v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STACEY L. NELSON and RAYMOND SANDOVAL v. CITY OF LARAMIE

Docket Numbers: S-12-0031; S-12-0032; S-12-0073

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge.

Representing Appellants in Case Nos. S-12-003, S-12-0032 and S-12-0073: R. Michael Vang of Fleener & Vang, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee in Case Nos. S-12-0031 and S-12-0032: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Michael T. Kahler, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee in Case No. S-12-0073: David C. Clark, Laramie City Attorney, Laramie, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: December 19, 2012

Facts: This opinion encompasses three separate appeals that involve two appellants, but all challenged the same Laramie ordinance. While the appeals have not been consolidated, the Court joined them for the purpose of opinion. The appellants, Raymond Sandoval (Sandoval) and Stacey L. Nelson (Nelson), challenged the validity of Laramie Enrolled Ordinance 1592 in their contested case hearings regarding the suspension of their driver’s licenses before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and in a declaratory judgment action. The district court affirmed the suspension of their driver’s licenses and dismissed the petition for declaratory judgment, finding that the claims were not justiciable.

Issues: 1. Did the OAH hearing examiners err when they determined that the appellants were given the proper Wyoming Implied Consent Advisement and that further advisement regarding a Laramie municipal ordinance was not necessary?

2. Did the district court err when it dismissed the appellants’ petition for declaratory judgment after finding they did not raise a justiciable controversy?

Holdings: The OAH examiners appropriately found that Laramie Enrolled Ordinance 1592 did not change the nature of the advisements law enforcement officers are required to provide an individual pursuant to Wyoming’s implied consent statutes. Consequently, the OAH also properly upheld the appellants’ driver’s license suspensions. Additionally, the district court did not err when it dismissed the appellants’ petition for declaratory relief. The appellants failed to present the district court with a justiciable claim and the district court correctly concluded that the issues presented in the petition should have been brought in the appellants’ criminal proceedings. Affirmed.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Monday, December 17, 2012

Summary 2012 WY 159

Summary of Decision December 17, 2012

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Names: KEVIN W. OSBORN v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Numbers: S-12-0042; S-12-00116

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Converse County, Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Pro Se.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Meri Geringer, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: December 17, 2012

Facts: Appellant’s appeal related to his convictions and sentences for several serious crimes committed in 1982. In 2012, the district court granted a motion by Appellant to correct an illegal sentence, but Appellant claimed on appeal that the district court violated his right to be present when the sentence was corrected. He also challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his previous guilty pleas.

Issues: Appellant states these issues, slightly reworded:

1. Did the trial court violate Appellant’s state and federal constitutional rights by sentencing him in absentia?

2. Did the trial court err by modifying Appellant’s sentence without allowing him to withdraw his plea?

Holdings: Appellant’s presence could not have been of any possible use, and the district court did not err in ruling that Appellant did not have the constitutional right to be present at this stage of the proceedings. The district court also did not err in refusing to allow Appellant to withdraw his guilty pleas. The district court’s decision was affirmed.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Friday, December 14, 2012

Summary 2012 WY 158

Summary of Decision December 14, 2012

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Case Names: NORTHERN LARAMIE RANGE FOUNDATION, a Wyoming non-profit corporation, NORTHERN LARAMIE RANGE ALLIANCE, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, and WHITE CREEK RANGE, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company v. CONVERSE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and WASATCH WIND INTERMOUNTAIN, LLC d/b/a Pioneer Windpark I, LLC, and Pioneer Windpark II, LLC.

NORTHERN LARAMIE RANGE FOUNDATION, a Wyoming non-profit corporation, NORTHERN LARAMIE RANGE ALLIANCE, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, INDUSTRIAL SITING DIVISION, and WASATCH WIND INTERMOUNTAIN, LLC d/b/a Pioneer Windpark I, LLC, and Pioneer Windpark II, LLC.

Docket Numbers: S-12-0060; S-12-0061

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Converse County, Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge.

Representing Appellants: Peter C. Nicolaysen and Pamela M. Brondos of Nicolaysen and Associates, P.C., Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Nicholaysen.

Representing Appellee Converse County Board of County Commissioners: No appearance.

Representing Appellee Wasatch Wind Intermountain, LLC: Brent R. Kunz and Lucas Buckley of Hathaway & Kunz, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming; John A. Masterson and Alaina M. Stedillie of Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Masterson.

Representing Appellee Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Industrial Division: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Jay A. Jerde, Deputy Attorney General; Luke J. Esch, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument made by Mr. Esch.

Date of Decision: December 14, 2012

Facts: This appeal involved two permitting actions for a wind energy project in the mountains of Converse County. In Case No. S-12-0060, the Northern Laramie Range Alliance, LLC (NLRA), Northern Laramie Range Foundation (NLRF) and White Creek Ranch, LLC (“the objectors”) challenged the district court’s affirmance of the Converse County Board of County Commissioners’ (Board) decision to grant Wasatch Wind Intermountain, LLC’s (Wasatch) application for a Wind Energy Conversion System Permit (WECS permit). They also challenged the district court’s rulings that NLRA and NLRF did not have standing to appeal the Board’s decision. The Court concluded NLRA has standing, but NLRF does not. They further ruled the Board properly granted Wasatch’s application for a WECS permit. Consequently, in Case No. S-12-0060, the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

In the second case, Case No. S-12-0061, NLRA and NLRF (“the objectors”) challenged the district court’s affirmance of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Industrial Siting Council’s (ISC) decision to grant a state industrial siting permit for construction of the project. The Court concluded the agency acted within its authority, and there was sufficient evidence to justify its decision. Consequently, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision in Case No. S-12-0061

Issues: The issues in the Converse County case, Case No. S-12-0060, may be summarized as follows:

1. What is the appropriate standard of review of the Board’s action?

2. Do NLRF, NLRA and/or White Creek Ranch have standing to appeal?

3. Did the Board act in an arbitrary or capricious manner, abuse its discretion or otherwise act in a manner not in accordance with law when it was ruled Wasatch’s application was complete and granted it a WECS permit?
         a. Was the traffic study adequate?

         b. Was there sufficient evidence of financial assurances?

4. Were proper notifications given to nearby landowners?

5. Were the objectors denied due process of law?

The issues raised in Case No. S-12-0061 are:

1. Was it lawful for the ISC to issue the industrial siting permit subject to Special Condition #19 which required Wasatch to provide further evidence of its financial resources prior to construction of the project?

2. Did the ISC properly conclude that, with the inclusion of Special Project #19, Wasatch had met the financial assurance requirement and was entitled to a permit?

3. Were the ISC’s findings that the project will not pose a threat of serious injury to the environment or to the social and economic condition or inhabitants in the affected area supported by substantial evidence?

Holdings: In the Converse County case, Case No. S-12-0060, the Court agreed with the district court that White Creek Ranch, as an adjacent landowner, had standing to appeal the Board’s decision because it asserted the project threatened its scenic views and wildlife habitat and migration, interests which are sufficient under Northfork. The Court disagreed with the district court regarding NLRA and concluded that it had standing through its members to appeal. NLRF, however, did not have standing; its claims were simply too general and speculative to separate its asserted injury from that of the general public. The Court also held that the arbitrary and capricious standard was appropriate for the review of the Board’s decision, given the administrative process was an informal public hearing. On the merits, the Court concluded the Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by determining Wasatch had presented sufficient traffic study and financial assurance information. In addition, the proper notifications were provided and the objectors were not denied due process of law. The Court, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision in Case No. S-12-0060.

In the ISC case, Case No. S-12-0061, the Court concluded the ISC was not required to rely solely on Wasatch’s individual financial resources, but could consider the financial evidence relative to its proposed investor, Edison. The ISC also properly conditioned Wasatch’s permit by requiring additional financial assurance prior to commencement of construction. The agency did not err in allowing Wasatch to evaluate different “affected areas” for the various interests identified in the statutes. Finally, the record contained substantial evidence to support the ISC’s conclusion that Wasatch’s proposed facility will not pose a threat of serious injury to the environment or to the social and economic condition or inhabitants in the affected area. The Court, therefore, affirmed the district court’s decision in Case No. S-12-0061.
Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Summary 2012 WY 157

Summary of Decision December 13, 2012

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: CODY T. ZEITNER v. JOSEPH GROSSMAYER SHANK

Docket Number: S 12-0142

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Pro se.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): No appearance.

Date of Decision: December 13, 2012

Facts: Appellant, Cody Zeitner, acting pro se, challenged the district court’s order denying her petition for modification of custody. No transcript of the hearings on the petition was created, and Ms. Zeitner’s statement of the evidence was not approved by the district court pursuant to Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.03. Further, Ms. Zeitner’s appellate brief failed to comply with several provisions of W.R.A.P. 7.01.

Issues: Ms. Zeitner (Mother) presented the following issues:

1. Did the trial Judge’s decision to admit and review evidence in September, 2011 but fail to acknowledge it in January, 2012, a full four months later, violate due process?

2. Did the trial Judge’s personal opinion about the Plaintiff and her marriage, specifically forming opinions based on no facts or evidence, violate the Wyoming Judicial Code of Conduct?

3. Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona made over 30 rulings. Did misinterpretations and failure to clarify the Arizona[] Court[’s] 2007 and 2008 orders filed by the maternal grandparents result in an unfair ruling? Were they even relevant to these proceedings?

4. [The trial court] faxed information to the Defendant that was used to discredit the Plaintiff on a Power of Attorney that was filed by mistake. The correct and legal document was admitted into evidence. Did [the court’s] ex parte communication with the Defendant violate the Wyoming Judicial Code of Conduct?

5. Plaintiff filed [the] petition based on very specific UCCJEA[1] statutes as well as the application of Wyoming statutes on child abuse and abandonment that fell under UCCJEA guidelines. Did [the court’s] failure to rule on the issues in the Plaintiff’s initial pleading result in an unfair ruling?

Appellee (Father) did not file a brief.

Holdings: As the proponent of this appeal, it was Mother’s burden to provide a complete record for the Court’s review. Mother failed to satisfy this obligation. Consequently, the Court presumed the regularity of the district court’s judgment and the competency of the evidence upon which that judgment was based. Under the limited scope of review allowed in the absence of a hearing transcript in this case, which permitted the Court to address only those errors of law appearing in the record, the Court found no such error. Additionally, as noted above, Mother’s brief failed to adhere to the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, most notably in its lack of cogent argument or pertinent legal authority. In light of these defects, the Court affirmed the district court’s order denying Mother’s petition for modification of custody.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Summary 2012 WY 156

Summary of Decision December 13, 2012

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: CITY OF CHEYENNE, WYOMING, a Municipal Corporation v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF LARAMIE, WYOMING, and DEBORAH K. LATHROP, in her official capacity as the County Clerk of Laramie County, Wyoming, and JOSEPH D. FENDER and SHARI-SUE FENDER, Husband and Wife.
Docket Number: S‑12-0058

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx
Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): John H. Ridge and Daniel E. White, City of Cheyenne, City Attorney’s Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Ridge.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Alexander K. Davison, Patton and Davison, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Mark T. Voss, Laramie County Attorney’s Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming; John M. Walker and Robert J. Walker, Hickey and Evans, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Voss and Mr. Davison.

Date of Decision: December 13, 2012

Facts: The facts were established by stipulation of the parties. Roundup Heights is a subdivision located in the County. It was platted in 1955. In 2010, the owners of certain lots applied for County approval of a partial vacation of the subdivision plat to eliminate some lot boundaries and rights-of-way. During the review process, the City submitted a comment stating that the affected property is within one mile of the City limits, and asserting on that basis that both City and County approval were required for the partial vacation. The County disagreed, and granted the partial vacation without City approval. The City filed suit, seeking declaratory judgment that joint City and County approval is required for partial vacation if the affected land is within one mile of the City. The district court issued summary judgment in favor of the County, and the City appealed.
Issues: The issue as stated by the City is “Whether Title 34, Chapter 12 of the Wyoming Statutes requires joint City/County approval before a partial vacation of a plat may be recorded, when the affected plat of land is located within one (1) mile of a city boundary.”

Holdings: The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the County was affirmed.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Summary 2012 WY 155

Summary of Decision December 13, 2012


Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DONALD PAUL HUTCHINSON v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S 12 0034

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Elisabeth M.W. Trefonas, Assistant Public Defender, Jackson, WY.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: December 13, 2012

Facts: In October of 2010, Donald Hutchinson was charged with one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. The charges against Hutchinson alleged that he inappropriately touched a six-year-old girl’s vagina for sexual gratification while bathing her. Hutchinson was the victim’s step-grandfather at the time. The victim (HAL) reported the incident to her 14-year-old brother (TL), who then told their grandmother, who reported the information to authorities of the allegations, and an investigation followed. Eventually, the case was tried to a jury on November 7-8, 2011, and Hutchinson was found guilty. He was sentenced to two to eight years at the State penitentiary. On appeal, he contends that the victim was incompetent to testify and that the district court improperly denied his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.

Issues: Hutchinson presents two issues:

1. Because the competency of the child witness was not properly examined and she was not competent to testify, it was clearly erroneous to allow her testimony and Hutchinson’s conviction must be reversed.

2. Because there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Hutchinson had “sexual contact” with the victim, it was an abuse of discretion to deny the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Hutchinson’s conviction must be reversed.

Holdings: The Court concluded that the trial court’s decision that the child victim was competent to testify was not clearly erroneous. Having passed the five-part test elicited by the Court during an impromptu but proper hearing, finding HAL competent to testify was squarely within the court’s sound discretion. Furthermore, after a thorough record review, and accepting the evidence as true and giving every favorable inference thereto, we find that the State presented sufficient evidence to show that Hutchinson engaged in sexual contact with HAL. Thus, the Court concluded the district court properly denied Hutchinson’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. Affirmed.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Summary 2012 WY 154

Summary of Decision December 13, 2012

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and Remanded.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE MODIFICATION OF THE MARK E. DOWELL IRREVOCABLE TRUST #1, dated the 16th of May, 2000: ELIZABETH L. DOWELL v. MARK E. DOWELL

Docket Number: S-12-0098

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable David B. Park, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Ann M. Rochelle of Rochelle Law Offices, P.C., Casper, Wyoming; Douglas McLaughlin of Law Office of Douglas R. McLaughlin, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Rochelle.

Representing Appellee: Judith Studer and Tassma A. Powers of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Studer.

Date of Decision: December 13, 2012

Facts: While he and Appellant Elizabeth (Betsy) Dowell were still married, Appellee Dr. Mark Dowell created an irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT) naming Ms. Dowell as its primary beneficiary and their two children as contingent beneficiaries. The couple divorced five years later. Six years after the divorce, Dr. Dowell filed a petition to modify the trust, in which he contended that he did not need to obtain Ms. Dowell’s consent to modify because she had relinquished her beneficial interest in the property settlement agreement incorporated into their divorce decree. The district court agreed. Ms. Dowell appealed from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Dr. Dowell.

Issues: Did Ms. Dowell waive her expectancy in an irrevocable life insurance trust by consenting to the terms of a property settlement agreement which was incorporated in the parties’ decree of divorce?

Holdings: Because the Dowell’s divorce decree falls short of the Cellers benchmark, it cannot be said to have divested Ms. Dowell of her status as the primary beneficiary of the ILIT as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court reversed the summary judgment granted to Dr. Dowell to the extent it determined that Ms. Dowell was not a qualified beneficiary whose consent was necessary to permit the trial court to judicially modify the ILIT. The Court also remanded and instructed the district court to grant Ms. Dowell’s summary judgment motion on that issue, as the record before the Court as a matter of law does not reflect an adequate waiver of her status as a qualified beneficiary of the ILIT.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Summary 2012 WY 153

Summary of Decision December 11, 2012

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed. Justice Burke filed a dissenting opinion.

Case Name: ALINE H. McWILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0126

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Alden.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Darci A.V. Arsene, Special Assistant Attorney; Matthew F. Redle, Special Assistant Attorney. Argument by Mr. Redle.

Date of Decision: December 11, 2012

Facts: This was an appeal from the district court’s order modifying a previous deferral order entered pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1037 (LexisNexis 2011), the district court’s entry of judgment of conviction on one previously deferred count, and the district court’s entry of judgment and sentence on that count.

Issues: 1. Are the State’s Motion to Reconsider and the subsequent Order on State’s Motion to Reconsider, and the subsequent Judgment and Sentence nullities, and therefore void?

2. If the Motion to Reconsider was not a nullity, was it deemed denied under W.R.C.P. 6(c)(2)?

Holdings: The State’s pre-judgment Motion to Reconsider was not a nullity, and it was not a W.R.C.P 60(b) motion that was deemed denied 90 days after filing. The Court affirmed.

Justice Burke respectfully dissented. To read the full opinion and dissent, see the URL link above.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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]

Check out our tags in a cloud (from Wordle)!