Summary 2013 WY 62

Summary of Decision May 17, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

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

Docket Number: S-12-0220

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

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

Representing Appellant: William G. Hibbler, Bill G. Hibbler, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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

Date of Decision: May 17, 2013

Facts: The Wyoming Workers’ Safety Compensation Division awarded benefits to Appellant, Kirk Jacobs, after he experienced a workplace injury. Mr. Jacobs sought payment for prescription medication that he claimed was related to his workplace injury. The Division denied the claim. Mr. Jacobs requested a contested case hearing, and the Medical Commission upheld the Division’s determination. Mr. Jacobs appealed to the district court, which affirmed the Medical Commission’s order. Mr. Jacobs challenged the district court’s decision in this appeal.

Issues: Mr. Jacobs states the issues as follows:

1. Was the commission decision holding that Mr. Jacobs did not meet his burden of proof that he was entitled to continuation of medical benefits supported by substantial evidence?

2. Did the Division’s prior determination, assigning a 78% whole body permanent physical impairment rating, establish as a matter of law that Mr. Jacobs’ chronic abdominal pain was directly related to his initial compensable toe injury?

3. Did the commission properly apply the recognized second compensable injury burden of proof?

The Division phrases the issues as follows:

1. Did the Commission apply the proper burden of proof for a second compensable injury when it required Jacobs to establish a causal connection between his abdominal pain and his Keflex ingestion?

2. Did substantial evidence support the Commission’s determination?

Holdings: Mr. Jacobs was required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was a direct causal relationship between his accident and his abdominal pain. The record revealed that the Commission correctly applied the requisite burden of proof. The Commission’s order correctly cites the applicable law regarding the burden of proof and demonstrates its understanding that the claimant had the burden of proving the elements of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The Commission concluded that Mr. Jacobs “failed to present sufficient credible evidence to establish that his current abdominal care and treatment causally related to the work-related injury.” Although the Commission did not directly state that Mr. Jacobs failed to prove the elements “by a preponderance of the evidence,” it is clear from the context of the Commission’s order that it applied the burden correctly. Accordingly, the Court found no error in the Commission’s application of Mr. Jacobs’ burden of proof. 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 2013 WY 61

Summary of Decision May 17, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Remanded.

Case Name: PAUL ROCK, DARI QUIRK & ERNEST KAWA v. MARY LANKFORD, in her official capacity as Sublette County Clerk.

MARY LANKFORD, in her official capacity as Sublette County Clerk v. PAUL ROCK, DARI QUIRK & ERNEST KAWA

Docket Number: S-12-0216; S-12-0217

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

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

Representing Paul Rock, Dari Quirk, and Ernest Kawa: Sky D. Phifer, Phifer Law Office, Lander, Wyoming.

Representing Mary Lankford, in her official capacity as Sublette County Clerk: Neal R. Stelting, Sublette County and Prosecuting Attorney, Pinedale, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: May 17, 2013

Facts: In August of 2011, the voters of Sublette County approved a ballot proposition increasing the size of the county commission from three to five. Before the proposed change could be implemented in the primary and general elections to be held in 2012, a second ballot proposition reducing the size of the commission from five back to three was submitted to the voters in May of 2012. The proposition passed, and Sublette County Clerk Mary Lankford determined that the second proposition returned the size of the commission to three, and therefore held an election for the one commission seat which would have been open if there had been no ballot propositions.

Appellants Rock, Quirk, and Kawa challenged Lankford’s decision, claiming that the additional seats permitted by the August 2011 ballot proposition could not be eliminated until they were filled, and that the May 2012 special election decreasing the number of seats was improper and void. Lankford disagreed with Appellants’ interpretation of the applicable statutes, and she moved to dismiss the complaint because it was untimely and brought by an insufficient number of electors under statutes governing ballot proposition contests. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but agreed with Lankford that the May 2012 election was proper, and granted her summary judgment.

The case came to the Supreme Court as two separate appeals. Appellants Rock, Quirk, and Kawa challenged the district court’s decision as to the interpretation of the statute governing increases and decreases in county commissions in Case No. S-12-0216. Lankford appealed the district court’s decision denying her motion to dismiss in Case No. S-12-0217, and raised the same issue as an alternative ground for affirmance in Case No. S-12-0216.

Issues: 1. Did Appellants’ claim amount to an election contest of a May 2012 ballot proposition under Wyoming Statutes § 22-17-105?

2. If so, did Appellants meet the requirements to maintain a ballot contest pursuant to the above statute so that the district court had jurisdiction over the dispute?

Holdings: The Court found that Appellants’ claims are an election contest, that they were not timely filed or brought by a sufficient number of electors, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims. Although the Court’s decision upholds the 2012 election as did that of the district court, the Court found the district court’s decision to be void and remanded for dismissal.

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 2013 WY 60

Summary of Decision May 15, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF ROBERT A. SANDS v. RICHARD BROWN, Guardian and Conservator.

Docket Number: S-12-0209

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Michael K. Davis, Judge

Representing Appellant: Mitchell E. Osborn, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: No appearance.

Date of Decision: May 15, 2013

Facts: The district court entered orders appointing Richard Brown as guardian and conservator for Robert A. Sands. Mr. Sands sought to terminate the guardianship and the district court denied his petition. Six months later, however, the district court held a review hearing and terminated the guardianship. Mr. Brown filed a motion for attorney fees and costs and the district court reopened the guardianship for the purpose of deciding the motion. Before the motion was heard, Mr. Sands filed a complaint alleging that Mr. Brown had breached his duties. After a hearing, the district court entered an order ruling in favor of Mr. Brown on Mr. Sands’ complaint and awarding Mr. Brown and his attorney fees and costs. Mr. Sands appealed claiming the district court erred when it denied his petition to terminate the guardianship, reopened the guardianship for the purpose of awarding fees and costs and dismissed his complaint.

Issues: We rephrase the issues Mr. Sands presents as follows:

1. Whether the district court properly continued the guardianship and conservatorship of Mr. Sands over his objection and the objections of this family members.

2. Whether the evidence supports the district court’s holding that Mr. Brown substantially complied with the guardianship and conservatorship statutes and did not breach his fiduciary duties.

3. Whether the district court properly ruled on the matters asserted in Mr. Sands’ complaint at the final hearing on Mr. Brown’s petition for fees and costs.

Mr. Brown did not file a brief in this Court.

Holdings: At no time during the hearing did Mr. Sands’ counsel object to the proceedings. To the contrary, he voluntarily participated in the proceedings when, in response to the court’s statement that somebody had to address the misconduct issue and maybe it should be the party alleging it, counsel stated he “would be glad to go first” and proceeded to make an opening statement and call and examine witnesses to testify in an effort to prove Mr. Brown’s misconduct. Even when the district court stated that it intended to enter judgment and informed counsel that he had been “completely heard,” no objection was made. Likewise, when the district court made its ruling, counsel did not object. The Court held that any claim of error in the proceedings was waived by counsel’s unequivocal manifestation of intent to participate and failure to object. 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 2013 WY 59

Summary of Decision May 13, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: KARA WALTERS v. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Docket Number: S-12-0213

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

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

Representing Appellant: 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: May 13, 2013

Facts: Appellant Kara Walters was charged with driving while under the influence (DWUI) in Laramie, Wyoming. The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) suspended her driver’s license, and she requested an evidentiary hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearing (OAH). An OAH hearing examiner upheld the suspension against a challenge that she had not been properly advised as to implied consent. She then sought review of the administrative suspension in district court, where she also raised a number of constitutional challenges to a municipal criminal ordinance in addition to the claim that she had not been properly advised under the implied consent statute. The district court concluded that the constitutional issues before it had not and could not have been raised in the administrative hearing and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider them, and that Walters had been properly advised as to implied consent.

Issues: 1. Did the arresting officer properly advise Ms. Walters as to implied consent as required by Wyoming Statute § 31-6-102(a)(ii) when she was under a municipal criminal ordinance?

2. Does this Court have jurisdiction to consider challenges to a municipal ordinance that were not and could not have been raised in a license suspension hearing?

Holdings: The hearing examiner correctly determined that Ms. Walters was properly advised as required by statute. Her other claims were not and could not have been presented in a license suspension proceeding. 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 2013 WY 58

Summary of Decision May 10, 2013


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

Case Name: DANIEL B. WALKER v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0195

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

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

Representing Appellant: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; Kirk A. Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Morgan.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Meri V. Geringer, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Geringer.

Date of Decision: May 10, 2013

Facts: Appellant, Daniel Walker, challenged his conviction for felony stalking, in violation of Wyo. Ann. Stat. § 6-2-506(e)(iv). He contended that the amended information did not allege facts sufficient to constitute the offense of felony stalking and did not adequately inform him of the charges against him. Appellant also claimed that the jury was not properly instructed with respect to the intent element of the crime, resulting in plain error.

Issues: Appellant presents the following issues:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to amend the felony information?

2. Was Mr. Walker denied his constitutional right to adequate notice of the charge he must defend against, as provided for under the federal and the Wyoming Constitutions, and the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure?

3. Did plain error result when the trial court provided a confusing and misleading jury instruction which combined two of the elements of stalking and instructed the jury that both of those elements were met upon the State establishing a combination of certain actions by Mr. Walker?

The State phrases the issues in a substantially similar manner.

Holdings: The Court found no error in the district court’s decision permitting the State to amend the information and also conclude that Appellant was adequately informed of the charges. The Court agreed, however, with Appellant’s contention that the jury was not properly instructed regarding the elements of the crime. As a result, the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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 2013 WY 57

Summary of Decision May 10, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JOHN LESLIE CHAPMAN v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0085

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

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, the Honorable Nena James, Judge

Representing Appellant: Elisabeth M.W. Trefonas, Assistant Public Defender

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: May 10, 2013

Facts: Appellant John Chapman was initially charged with attempted first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder after he allegedly shot a man he believed to have assaulted his fiancée. He was later charged with aggravated assault with a request for habitual criminal enhancement to life in prison based on the same event.

Chapman pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of attempted second degree murder in an oral plea agreement which provided for dismissal of the conspiracy and aggravated assault charges. He was sentenced to a term of twenty-five to fifty years in accordance with the plea agreement. The district court ordered restitution but waived reimbursement of public defender fees.

Chapman later moved to withdraw his plea, claiming that his attorney conspired with the court, misled him about the term he would serve, and otherwise coerced him into pleading guilty. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion. Chapman timely appealed the decision denying the motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that the court abused its discretion in denying it. He also claimed in this appeal that the district court abused its discretion in awarding restitution.

Issues: 1. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied Chapman’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea?

2. Did the district court have authority to award restitution and waive reimbursement of public defender fees?

Holdings: The district court acted reasonably and within its discretion in denying Chapman’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Chapman did not timely appeal the restitution provisions of his judgment and sentence, and he thereby waived his right to challenge anything other than the district court’s authority to make the award. The court had authority to award restitution and waive public defender fees as it did under W.R.Cr.P. 32.1. 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 2013 WY 56

Summary of Decision May 9, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Dismissed and Remanded.

Case Name: THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT v. CONNIE M. POWELL.

Docket Number: S-12-0192

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

Appeal from the District Court of Hot Springs County, the Honorable Robert E. Skar, Judge

Representing Appellant: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Jared Crecelius, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee: No appearance filed.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2013

Facts: In 2009, the Wyoming Department of Family Services (Department) filed an action to enforce a 2003 order requiring Connie Powell to pay child support and certain related expenses. Instead of enforcing the 2003 order, the district court set aside the 2003 order, ordered that the child support obligation be recalculated, and directed that the revised child support obligation be applied retroactive to 1999, the date the children’s father obtained custody of the children. The Department appealed, contending that the district court abused its discretion in setting aside the 2003 order.

Issues: The Department presents the following issue on appeal:

In 2012, the district court ordered a retroactive recalculation of child support against Connie Powell for child support arrears and medical and travel expenses even though neither the mother nor the father filed a motion or petition requesting modification of child support or relief from the judgment. Did the district court abuse its discretion by retroactively modifying the child support order and setting aside the judgment without a proper petition or motion from a party requesting such relief?

Holdings: The district court was without jurisdiction to modify the August 2003 child support order where no petition to modify had been filed. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal and remanded to the district court for entry of an order vacating the Order Setting Aside August 4, 2003 Judgment and Child Support Obligation filed on June 29, 2012.

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 2013 WY 55

Summary of Decision May 8, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JORGE OMERO MENDOZA v. STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0165

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

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

Representing Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender, PDP; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: May 8, 2013

Facts: The district court denied Jorge Omero Mendoza’s motion for a new trial after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault and battery. The State advanced two theories that Mr. Mendoza committed aggravated assault – 1) he attempted to cause serious bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; and 2) he threatened to use a drawn deadly weapon on another person. The jury found him not guilty of the first alternative, but guilty of the second. Mr. Mendoza claims the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that he had no duty to retreat before “threatening to use a drawn deadly weapon,” and he is therefore, entitled to a new trial.

Issues: Mr. Mendoza presents the following issue on appeal:

Did the trial court err in denying the motion for new trial, which was based upon the trial court’s failure to give an explanatory jury instruction regarding whether appellant had a “duty to retreat” if charged with ag[g]ravated assault pursuant to Wyo. Stat. 6-2-205(a)(iii)?

The State presents substantially the same issue, although phrased differently.

Holdings: The jury instructions in this case did not violate a clear and unequivocal rule of law. Mr. Mendoza, therefore, failed to establish plain error and, accordingly, the Court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mr. Mendoza’s motion for a new trial. 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 2013 WY 54

Summary of Decision May 8, 2013


Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Answered in the Negative.

Case Name: In re: RALPH GIFFORD and BETTY J. GIFFORD, Debtors, GARY A. BARNEY, TRUSTEE v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., its assigns and successors.

Docket Number: S-12-0177

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

W.R.A.P. 11 Certified Question from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Wyoming, the Honorable Peter J. McNiff, Judge

Representing Appellant: Bradley T. Hunsicker and Stephen R. Winship of Winship and Winship, P.C., Casper, WY. Argument by Mr. Hunsicker.

Representing Appellee: Thomas M. Hefferon of Goodwin Proctor LLP, Washington, D.C.; and James R. Belcher of Belcher & Boomgaarden LLP, Cheyenne, WY. Argument by Mr. Hefferon.

Date of Decision: May 8, 2013

Facts: The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Wyoming certified a question to this Court concerning the effect of two Wyoming statutes on a debtor’s mortgage. Specifically, the bankruptcy court asks whether the mortgage must comply with Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 34-2-122 and 34-2-123.

Issues: The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Wyoming certified the following question to this Court:

Whether the mortgage must comply with Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 34-2-122 and 34-2-123?

Holdings: The Court answered the question in the negative. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 34-2-122 and 123 are notice statutes intended to protect third parties from conflicting claims of a principal and agent. The Mortgage at issue in this case was not required to comply with Sections 122 and 123 because a) the recorded assignment of the Mortgage did not identify the grantee as acting in a representative capacity; and b) there were no conflicting claims of a principal and agent from which a third party would require protection.

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 2013 WY 53

Summary of Decision May 8, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Dismissed.

Case Name: R. MARK ARMSTRONG v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, JOHN CORRA, JAMES UZZELL, ROBERT DOCTOR, and DALE ANDERSON, as Individuals in Their Personal Capacity and in Their Official Capacity

Docket Number: S-12-0210

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Michael Davis, Judge.

Representing Appellant: R. Mark Armstrong, Pro se.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; and Thomas W. Rumpke, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: May 8, 2013

Facts: R. Mark Armstrong challenged an order dismissing his breach of contract claims against the State of Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Issues: Armstrong indentifies twelve issues, but his argument seems to be limited to three basic questions for this Court, which we rephrase as follows:

1. Regarding the breach of contract, Armstrong claims the DEQ breached a settlement agreement by treating his resignation as unconditional and failing to satisfy the conditions. Further, because Armstrong’s resignation was included in the settlement offer, the governor of Wyoming should have approved the settlement. Also, the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act does not bar his contract claims.

2. Armstrong asserts that the State should be stopped from raising res judicata as a defense, and further, judicial estoppels should preclude the State from claiming the breach of contract issues were decided in federal court.

3. In his third and final argument, Armstrong discusses his defamation claims, claiming that defamation affected his ability to acquire and maintain employment.

Holdings: Based upon Armstrong’s failure to follow the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court 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 2013 WY 52

Summary of Order of Interim Suspension May 1, 2013

Case Name: BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING STATE BAR v. CLAY B. JENKINS, WSB #5-2249.

Docket Number: D-13-0004

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

Date of Decision: May 1, 2013

Pursuant to Section 17 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, Bar Counsel for the Wyoming State Bar filed, on April 11, 2013, a “Petition for Interim Suspension of Attorney.” The Court, after a careful review of the petition, the “Affidavit of Bar Counsel in Support of Petition for Interim Suspension of Attorney,” and the file, concludes that the petition for interim suspension should be granted and that Respondent should be suspended from the practice of law pending resolution of the formal charge that has been, or will be, filed against him. See Section 17(c) (“Within fifteen (15) days of the entry of an order of interim suspension, Bar Counsel shall file a formal charge.”) It is, therefore,

ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that, effective May 10, 2013, the Respondent, Clay B. Jenkins, shall be, and hereby is, suspended from the practice of law, pending final resolution of the formal charge that has been, or will be, filed against him; and it is further

ORDERED that, during the period of interim suspension, Respondent shall comply with the requirements of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, particularly the requirements found in Section 22 of that code; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(a)(iv) of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, this Order of Interim Suspension shall be published in the Pacific Reporter; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall transmit a copy of this Order of Interim Suspension to the Respondent, Bar Counsel, members of the Board of Professional Responsibility, and the clerks of the appropriate courts of the State of Wyoming.

DATED this 1st day of May, 2013.

BY THE COURT:*

/s/

MARILYN S. KITE

Chief Justice

*Justice Davis took no part in the consideration of this matter. Retired Justice Michael Golden participated by assignment.

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]