Summary 2013 WY 72

Summary of Decision June 12, 2013

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

Case Name: DANIEL RAY BOWLSBY v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0078

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

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County, Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge

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

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Joshua Eames, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Eames.

Date of Decision: June 12, 2013

Facts: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Daniel Ray Bowlsby pled guilty to one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree and one count of incest. Both charges were based on the same incident involving his stepdaughter. In accordance with the plea agreement, the State dismissed seven additional charges pending against Mr. Bowlsby. On appeal, Mr. Bowlsby contends that incest is a lesser included offense of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, and, under principles of double jeopardy, claims that it was improper to convict him of both crimes. He asserts that his conviction and sentence for the crime of incest should be vacated.

Issues: The dispositive issue presented by Mr. Bowlsby is whether his constitutional right not to be placed in double jeopardy was violated when, based on the same act with the same victim, he was convicted of both incest and sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree.

Holdings: We conclude that the crime of incest is a lesser included offense of the crime of first degree sexual abuse of a minor as charged in this case. Accordingly, we will reverse Mr. Bowlsby’s conviction and sentence for the crime of incest and remand for further proceedings.

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 71

Summary of Decision June 6, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: LISA M. BARRETT OLIVER, f/k/a LISA M. QUAST v. MICHAEL G. QUAST

Docket Number: S-12-0219

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant: Dameione S. Cameron of Cameron Law Office, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Laura J. Jackson of Jackson Law Firm, L.L.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: June 6, 2013

Facts: Michael G. Quast, the appellee, petitioned the district court for modification of his child support payments. At the hearing related to that petition, the appellee and Lisa M. Quast, the appellant, agreed that certain provisions related to the division of their children’s college tuition and extracurricular expenses contained in their property settlement and divorce agreement were in need of clarification. The district court modified the amount of child support owed by the appellee. Additionally, the district court determined that the appellant was voluntarily unemployed and imputed income to her for purposes of calculating the amount of income to attribute to each parent. The district court also added limitations to the college and extracurricular expense provisions. The appellant now appeals those decisions.

Issues: Did the district court abuse its discretion by imputing income to the appellant? Did the district court abuse its discretion by modifying the terms of the Property Settlement and Child Custody Agreement?

Holdings: The appellant contends that the district court improperly imputed income to her in determining the new level of presumptive child support owed by the appellee and improperly modified provisions governing college tuition and extracurricular expenses contained in the property settlement and divorce agreement. The record on appeal lacks a transcript from the district court’s hearing on these issues. Without the transcript, we must accept as true the district court’s evidentiary findings. The appellant was unable to show that the district court abused its discretion. 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 70

Summary of Decision June 5, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of Ms. Oliver.

Case Name: KAREN M. OLIVER, d/b/a CRAZY TONY’S RESTAURANT v. KEVIN M. QUYNN and NIKKI L. QUYNN, husband and wife

Docket Number: S-12-0161

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

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

Representing Appellant: Eric E. Jones, Eric E. Jones, PC, Wheatland, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees: Keith J. Dodson and Brian J. Marvel, Williams, Porter, Day and Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Marvel.

Date of Decision: June 5, 2013

Facts: This case stems from a dispute about a Party Wall Agreement between Appellant, Karen Oliver, and Appellees, Nikki and Kevin Quynn. The Quynns filed suit seeking a declaration that the Agreement was unenforceable. On summary judgment, the district court ruled that the Agreement’s provision prohibiting the Quynns from selling alcohol was void and unenforceable. Ms. Oliver challenges that decision in this appeal.

Issues: Ms. Oliver presents the following issues for our consideration: Whether the terms of the agreement in dispute are equitable servitudes binding on the real property and parties; and Whether the prohibition of the sale of alcoholic beverages is enforceable.

The Quynns present the same issues for our consideration, but organize Ms. Oliver’s issues into four more focused questions: Whether the district court properly held the covenant not to compete restraining the Quynns’ sale of alcohol is unenforceable due to unreasonable duration; Whether the district court properly held the covenant not to compete restraining the Quynns’ sale of alcohol is unenforceable because Ms. Oliver failed to prove it bears a reasonable, fair, and necessary relation to the business interests Ms. Oliver seeks to protect; Whether the district court properly held the covenant not to compete preventing the Quynns’ sale of alcohol is unenforceable because the restraint is greater than needed to protect Ms. Oliver’s legitimate interest; and Whether the district court properly held the covenant not to compete restricting the Quynns’ sale of alcohol is unenforceable because the threatened harm to the Quynns outweighs the need and harm of Ms. Oliver.

Holdings: We will reverse and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of Ms. Oliver.

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 69

Summary of Decision June 5, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed.

Case Name: TRINITY ST. JOHN a/k/a TRINITY POPE v. JOSHUA G. WAGNER, DDS, PC, d/b/a DENTAL CARE OF JACKSON HOLE

Docket Number: S-12-0188

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

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

Representing Appellant: Ryan R. Shaffer and Robert L. Stepans of Meyer, Shaffer & Stepans, PLLP, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Shaffer.

Representing Appellee: Lena K. Moeller and Jodanna L. Haskins of White & Steele, P.C., Denver, Colorado. Argument by Ms. Haskins.

Date of Decision: June 5, 2013

Facts: Trinity St. John (the appellant), sought dental care from Dr. Joshua Wagner (the appellee). Following a claim by the appellee alleging breach of contract, the appellant responded with a number of counterclaims, including a claim based on the Wyoming Consumer Protection Act (WCPA). The district court dismissed all of the appellant’s claims, ruling that they were time barred by the statute of limitations. The appellant now appeals the dismissal of her WCPA claim.

Issues: Is a WCPA claim alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices by a dentist subject to Wyoming’s two-year professional malpractice statute of limitations?

Holdings: The appellant’s WCPA claim alleges that the appellee committed unfair and deceptive trade practices by compelling the appellant to obtain a credit card from a particular credit card company to settle her account. Such a claim is not based on the rendering of professional or health care services and, therefore, the two-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice is inapplicable. We reverse the district court’s order of dismissal and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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 68

Summary of Decision June 5, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and Remanded.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIM OF SEAN A. RINGROSE: STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION v. LARAMIE COUNTY, WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0222

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: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Brenda S. Yamaji, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Yamaji.

Representing Appellee: Mark T. Voss, Laramie County Attorney and Sylvia Lee Hackl*, Deputy Laramie County Attorney, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

*Ms. Hackl withdrew as counsel for the Appellee on June 3, 2013.

Date of Decision: June 5, 2013

Facts: Sean A. Ringrose was terminated from his position as a patrol deputy for the Laramie County Sheriff’s Department. His initial application for unemployment benefits was denied, but after a contested case hearing, a Wyoming Department of Employment, Unemployment Insurance Division, hearing officer concluded he had not committed misconduct connected with his work and awarded benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Commission upheld the hearing officer’s decision, but, after Laramie County petitioned for judicial review, the district court reversed.

Issues: The Commission presents the following issue for this Court’s consideration: The Laramie County Sheriff’s Department terminated Mr. Ringrose’s employment with the Department following an incident that occurred while Mr. Ringrose was working private security. After an evidentiary hearing, a hearing officer allowed unemployment benefits finding that Mr. Ringrose was discharged from his employment, but not for misconduct connected to his work. The Unemployment Insurance Commission affirmed that decision. The district court reversed the Commission’s decision stating that it was not supported by substantial evidence. Was the Commission’s decision supported by substantial evidence?
Laramie County rephrases the issue: Whether the decision that Sean Ringrose was not discharged for misconduct related to his employment as a deputy sheriff was supported by substantial evidence.

Holdings: Applying the appropriate standard of review, we conclude substantial evidence was presented to support the agency’s decision and, therefore, reverse and remand for entry of an order affirming the Commission’s decision.

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 67

Summary of Decision May 31, 2013

District Court Judge Wilking delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JESSY MICHAEL DENNIS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0190

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Michael Davis, 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; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Martens.

Date of Decision: May 31, 2013

Facts: A jury convicted Jessy Michael Dennis (Dennis), of aggravated burglary in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-301(c)(i) (LexisNexis 2011). Dennis now appeals his conviction. He contends there was insufficient evidence of a corpus delicti and no evidence was presented to contradict the innocent intent expressed in his extrajudicial statements. He also argues the district court erred by declining his proposed specific intent instruction and adopting instructions that did not adequately explain the elements of aggravated burglary.

Issues: The State adequately describes the issues presented to the Court: Wyoming law requires independent proof of corpus delicti before an admission can be considered as evidence supporting a conviction. Dennis admitted he entered the victims’ unlocked home and took a pistol, which he later returned. The victims testified consistently with that admission--that someone entered their home without permission and removed a pistol. Did this testimony provide sufficient corroboration of Dennis’ admissions so that the jury could consider those admissions and so that the jury’s guilty verdict was supported by sufficient evidence? The test for jury instructions is whether they “leave no doubt as to the circumstances under which the crime can be found to have been committed.” The district court gave jury instructions about aggravated burglary that closely tracked the applicable statutory language, and Dennis agreed at trial that those instructions correctly stated the law. However, he proposed an additional instruction on the specific intent element of aggravated burglary which the court refused because it was repetitive and confusing. Did the court adequately instruct the jury on the elements of aggravated burglary?


Holdings: We find that sufficient independent evidence was presented to corroborate Dennis’ extrajudicial statements and to convict him of aggravated burglary. We further find that the jury was properly instructed. 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 66

Summary of Decision May 28, 2013

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

Case Name: TED NOBLES v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF LARAMIE COUNTY, d/b/a UNITED MEDICAL CENTER and d/b/a CHEYENNE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF LARAMIE COUNTY, d/b/a UNITED MEDICAL CENTER and d/b/a CHEYENNE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

Docket Number: S-12-0054

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

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

Representing Appellant: Donald J. Sullivan, Sullivan Law Offices, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees: Matthew C. Miller and Traci L. Van Pelt, McConnell Fleischner Houghtaling, LLC, Denver, Colorado. Argument by Ms. Van Pelt.

Date of Decision: May 28, 2013

Facts: In this medical malpractice case, the district court granted summary judgment against Appellant, Ted Nobles, and in favor of Appellees (Hospital), after determining that Mr. Nobles did not present his claim within the time specified in the applicable statute of limitations. Mr. Nobles appealed.

Issues: The parties present three issues: Whether the district court erred by failing to apply the continuous treatment rule? Whether the single act exception to the continuous treatment rule is recognized in Wyoming, and if so, whether it applies in this case. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Hospital.

Holdings: The district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Hospital and against Mr. Nobles. We decline to adopt the single act exception to the continuous treatment rule. This case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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 65

Summary of Decision May 24, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF THOMAS LANKFORD: MAUREEN UTLEY and NORMA BALLWEG v. THOMAS LANKFORD and ELAINE HANKS

Docket Number: S-12-0202

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

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

Representing Appellants: Ann Rochelle, of Rochelle Law Offices, P.C., Casper, WY.

Representing Appellees: William W. Harden, Casper, WY for Appellee Lankford; and Judith A. W. Studer, Carissa D. Mobley, and Marty L. Oblasser of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC; Casper, WY for Appellee Hanks. Argument by Mr. Harden and Ms. Oblasser.

Guardian ad Litem: Larry Middaugh, Casper, WY.

Representing the Attorney General of the State of Wyoming as Amicus Curiae: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; and Travis J. Kirchhefer, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Kirchhefer.

Date of Decision: May 24, 2013

Facts: Maureen Utley (Utley) and Norma Ballweg (Ballweg) (collectively Petitioners) petitioned to be appointed permanent guardians of their elderly uncle, Thomas Lankford. The district court dismissed the guardianship petition after finding Petitioners were not qualified to serve as guardians because their potential to inherit from Lankford created a disqualifying conflict of interest. On appeal, Petitioners contend that the district court erred in finding a conflict of interest. In the alternative, they assert that the guardianship conflict waiver statute, which allows a court to waive conflicts but limits that authority to conflicts of a spouse, adult child, parent, or sibling of a ward, violates their due process and equal protection rights.

Issues: Petitioners present the following issues on appeal: Issue No. One: Statute: Did Appellants have “interests that may conflict” with those of the ward “during the guardianship period” simply because Appellants were nieces and potential beneficiaries of the ward’s Will such that they were precluded from serving as guardians for their Uncle? Issue No. Two: Due Process: Can the State, consistently with due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution, irrebuttably presume under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-107 that all persons other than a “spouse, adult child, parent or sibling” have a conflict of interest with the ward without allowing those persons to provide individualized proof that they are competent to serve as guardian for their relative or individualized proof that the conflict is insubstantial? Issue No. Three: Equal Protection: Why should the interests of a “spouse, adult child, parent or sibling” be subject to the statutory exception under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-107(b) allowing for a hearing, but not those of nieces, nephews, cousins, and other relatives? Is Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-107 violative of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution?

Holdings: The district court did not err in finding that Petitioners had a conflict of interest that disqualified them from serving as Lankford’s guardians, and we do not address Petitioners’ constitutional claims. 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 64

Summary of Decision May 22, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: ERICK W. ESTERHOLDT as Trustee of the Erick W. Esterholdt Revocable Trust dated August 6, 2009, and JEANNE M. ESTERHOLDT as Trustee of the Jeanne M. Esterholdt Revocable Trust dated August 6, 2009 v. PACIFICORP, an Oregon corporation and JASON THORNOCK

Docket Number: S-12-0164

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

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

Representing Appellants: Sharon M. Rose of The Rose Law Firm, P.C., Evanston, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee PacifiCorp: David G. Ditto of Associated Legal Group, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Jason Thornock: David M. Clark of Worrall & Greear, P.C., Worland, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: May 22, 2013

Facts: Via a partial summary judgment, the district court held that the Wyoming Marketable Title Act (the Act), Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 34-10-101 et seq. (LexisNexis 2011), validated PacifiCorp’s pole line and utility easement across the Esterholdts’ property. The Esterholdts had filed an action seeking to have the easement declared invalid because it emanated from a “wild deed.”[1] Thornock intervened as a potential user of PacifiCorp’s power line. Several issues were determined by the district court, but the only issues before this Court in this appeal are based upon the Act.

Issues: Can a “wild deed” be the “root of title” under the Act? Is a “wild deed” an inherent defect in the chain of title?

Holdings: A wild deed, as defined herein, may constitute the “root of title” under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-10-101(a)(v), and a wild deed serving as a root of title that does not bear a defect “on its face” is not an “inherent defect” in the chain of record title under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-10-104(a)(i). We affirm the district court.

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 63

Summary of Decision May 21, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and Remanded.Case Name: WESTERN WYOMING CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING

Docket Number: S‑12‑0193

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

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County, the Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

Representing Appellant: Devon Petersen of Hooper-Strike Law Offices LLC, Lander, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Judith Studer of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: May 21, 2013

Facts: Western Wyoming Construction Co., Inc. (WWC) submitted a bid for a highway project in Sublette County, Wyoming. The Board of County Commissioners of Sublette County (Commissioners) awarded the contract to another company whose bid was higher than WWC’s. WWC filed a complaint in district court for an order awarding it the contract for the project. The Commissioners filed a motion for summary judgment which the district court granted. WWC appeals from the summary judgment order.

Issues: WWC presents the issue for this Court’s consideration as follows: Whether pursuant to W.S. § 16-6-102(a) it is an abuse of discretion and, therefore, illegal for a Board of County Commissioners to refuse to award a public works contract to the lowest responsible resident bidder on the basis that the next lowest bid is not significantly higher and was submitted by a firm from the same county.

The Commissioners restate the issues as follows: Does a Board of County Commissioners have a right to exercise any discretion in awarding a public works contract? Subsumed within the question is the following subpart: Does Wyo. Stat. Annot. § 16-6-102(a) that allows for a 5% resident preference, foreclose the exercise of discretion in awarding a public works contract between resident bidders? Was [WWC] a “responsible and responsive qualified Bidder” entitled to an award of the contract pursuant to the terms of the bid documents?

Holdings: Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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]