Summary 2014 WY 16

Summary of Decision January 28, 2014

Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: MARK S. HICKS, administrator and personal representative of the ESTATE OF JOHNNA R. HICKS v. TUENIS D. ZONDAG, M.D., and CENTRAL WYOMING NEUROSURGERY, LLC.

Docket Number: S-13-0107

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

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

Representing Appellant: Laurence W. Stinson, Stinson Law Group, P.C., Cody, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Jeffrey C. Brinkerhoff, Brinkerhoff Law, Jeffrey C. Brinkerhoff, P.C., Casper, Wyoming

Date of Decision: January 28, 2014

Facts: The estate of Johnna Hicks sued Dr. Tuenis Zondag for negligently causing Mrs. Hicks’ death while he was treating her for severe chronic pain. It also claimed that the doctor’s employer, Central Wyoming Neurosurgery, LLC, should be held vicariously liable for his claimed negligence in causing her death. After a nine-day trial, a Natrona County jury found that Zondag was not negligent in his treatment of Hicks and returned a defense verdict. In its timely appeal from the judgment entered on that verdict, the estate poses one question: Did the district court commit reversible error by permitting Zondag and his codefendant to introduce the testimony of two expert witnesses on the doctor’s adherence to the appropriate standard of care for practitioners of pain medicine?

Issue: Did Appellant waive objections to cumulative testimony under Wyoming Rule of Evidence 403 by failing to object at trial after the district court denied a motion in limine on that basis?

Holdings/Conclusion: In its order on the motion in limine filed by Mrs. Hicks’ estate, the district court deferred a definitive ruling on whether the defense could call two standard of care experts until trial. That decision required the estate to object to the testimony of the second expert when the district court could make a meaningful determination under W.R.E. 403. When it did not object, it failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. 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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 15

Summary of Decision January 28, 2014

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Justice Davis concurring generally and with special concurrence in which Justice Voigt joins. Chief Justice Kite and Justice Golden (ret.) dissenting.

Case Name: KERRY and CLARA POWERS, on behalf of themselves and the citizens of Wyoming, and CINDY HILL, on behalf of herself and as the SUPREINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION v. THE STATE OF WYOMING and MATTHEW H. MEAD, GOVERNOR, in his official capacity.

Docket Number: S-13-0052

*To see the full opinion, which includes general concurrence, special concurrence and dissent, please follow this link: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

W.R.A.P. 11 Certification from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge.

Representing Appellants: Angela C. Dougherty, Dougherty Law Office, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; John G. Knepper, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Michael.

Date of Decision: January 28, 2014

Facts: This matter comes before us as four certified questions from the district court for the First Judicial District of Wyoming. These questions ask us to determine whether Senate Enrolled Act 0001 violates the Wyoming Constitution.

Certified Questions: The district court certified four questions to this Court. However, we find the following question to be dispositive: Does Senate Enrolled Act 0001 violate Wyoming Constitution Article 7, Section 14?

Conclusion: The first certified question from the district court states: “Does Senate Enrolled Act 0001 violate Wyoming Constitution Article 7, Section 14?” We answer that question as follows: Yes. The “prescribed by law” provision in Article 7, Section 14 does not provide the legislature with unlimited authority to prescribe the powers and duties of the office of Superintendent. The legislative authority to prescribe is limited by the responsibility of “general supervision of the public schools” that was entrusted to the Superintendent in Article 7, Section 14. The legislature can prescribe powers and duties of the Superintendent, but it cannot eliminate or transfer powers and duties to such an extent that the Superintendent no longer maintains the power of “general supervision of the public schools.” The 2013 Act impermissibly transfers the power of general supervision from the elected constitutional office of Superintendent to the statutory office of Director of the Department of Education who is appointed by the Governor. Under the Act, the Superintendent no longer maintains the power of general supervision of the public schools. SEA 0001 is unconstitutional. In light of our response to the first certified question, it is unnecessary to consider Appellants’ challenges to the Act on the constitutional grounds identified in the remaining certified questions. We remand to the district court for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

*To see the full opinion, which includes general concurrence, special concurrence and dissent, please follow this link: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

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 2014 WY 14

Summary of Decision January 27, 2014

Justice Burke delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JESUS ANTONIO GONZALEZ-OCHOA v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0281

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

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

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Elisabeth M. W. Trefonas, Assistant Public Defender. Argument by Ms. Trefonas.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General; Jennifer E. Zissou, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Zissou.

Date of Decision: January 27, 2014

Facts: Appellant, Jesus Antonio Gonzalez-Ochoa, appeals from a judgment and sentence following his conviction on one count of first degree murder. He raises issues involving assertions of an improper evidentiary ruling, prosecutorial misconduct, and error in instructing the jury.

Issues: 1) Did the district court admit evidence of uncharged misconduct in violation of Rule 404(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Evidence? 2) Did the prosecutor engage in misconduct during closing argument by asserting facts not in evidence? 3) Did the district court err in refusing to give jury instructions proposed by the defense?

Holdings/Conclusion: 1) The district court could reasonably conclude that the testimony was not 404(b) evidence and we find no abuse of discretion in its decision to overrule the objection. Additionally, we are convinced that the verdict would have remained the same if the evidence had been excluded. 2) The prosecutor did not commit misconduct. 3) Appellant’s credibility was impeached in this case. Because Appellant’s credibility had been impeached, the Eagan Rule did not apply. The State further contends that an Eagan instruction was inappropriate because Appellant’s testimony was improbable. We agree, and on this basis as well, conclude that the district court did not err in refusing to give an “Eagan instruction” to the jury. Appellant’s conviction is 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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 13

Summary of Decision January 27, 2014

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the court. Affirmed.

Case Name: ROBERT OLAF ANDERSON v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0019

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: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; Kirk A. Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Morgan.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Pope.

Date of Decision: January 27, 2014

Facts: A jury convicted the appellant of felony driving while under the influence of alcohol. He now challenges two rulings of the district court—one concerning discovery and one concerning the admissibility of evidence—and also alleges his trial counsel was ineffective.

Issues: 1. Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying in part the appellant’s pretrial Request for IntoxNet Database Pursuant to W.S. § 31-6-105(e) and Proof of Compliance with Statutory Predicate for Admission of a Chemical Test Result Under W.S. 31-6-105(a)? 2. Did plain error occur, in the form of a violation of the appellant’s constitutional right to confrontation, when the State’s expert witness testified as to the operation, maintenance, and accuracy of the breath alcohol test machine used in this case? 3. Was the appellant’s trial counsel ineffective in not calling an expert witness to testify as to the effect of diabetes on the results of a breath alcohol test?

Holdings: Finding no error, we affirm the appellant’s conviction for felony driving while under the influence of alcohol.

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 2014 WY 12

Summary of Decision January 24, 2014

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

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

Docket Number: S-13-0108

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

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

Representing Appellant: Robert A. Nicholas, Nicholas Law Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Samantha Caselli, Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: January 24, 2014

Facts: A score of years ago, Appellant Shirlene Hathaway was attacked by a patient and suffered modest physical injuries while working at the Wyoming State Hospital. Four years later, she was denied permanent total disability (PTD) benefits because maximum medical improvement had not been reached. She continued seeking medical treatment and then reapplied for PTD benefits in 2009. The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (Division) denied her second claim, and the Medical Commission held a contested case hearing. Based upon the evidence presented, a panel of the Medical Commission denied the subsequent application for PTD benefits, determining that Appellant had not met her burden of proving entitlement to those benefits under the Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Act or the odd lot doctrine. It found that Appellant’s only disabling condition was psychological and not related to any compensable physical injury, and that she was thus limited to six months of benefits, which she had already received. Appellant sought review of the Medical Commission’s decision, and the district court affirmed.

Issues: The overarching question in this appeal is whether the condition causing Appellant’s disability is purely psychological, and not entirely or at least in part physical. We therefore restate the controlling issue as follows: Is the Medical Commission’s determination that Appellant was not entitled to PTD benefits because her disabling condition is solely psychological and not related to any compensable physical injury supported by substantial evidence and consistent with applicable law?

Holdings/Conclusion: The Medical Commission reasonably concluded that Appellant did not establish entitlement to PTD benefits under the Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Act or the odd lot doctrine, and its conclusions are in accordance with applicable law. 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 2014 WY 11

Summary of Decision January 24, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: KASEY J. PERKINS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0090

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

Appeal from the District Court of Big Horn County, the Honorable Robert E. Skar, Judge

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; and Kirk A. Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Peter A. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General; and Brian J. Fuller, Student Intern.

Date of Decision: January 24, 2014

Facts: Kasey Perkins entered Alford guilty pleas to four charges in the district court: two counts of promoting prostitution, one count of conspiracy to commit first degree sexual assault, and one count of aggravated assault and battery on a pregnant woman (his girlfriend). On appeal, Perkins contends that the “no contact” condition of probation is not reasonably related to his rehabilitation and furthermore is an encroachment upon his fundamental right to raise his children.

Issues: Mr. Perkins presents a single issue on appeal: Whether the district court abused its discretion when, during sentencing, and as a condition of probation, it ordered that Mr. Perkins have no contact with his minor children.

Holdings/Decision: Based upon the broad sentencing discretion of district courts, supported by Wyoming statute and substantial precedent, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s imposition of a “no contact” condition of probation in Perkins’ sentencing.

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 2014 WY 10

Summary of Decision January 23, 2014

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE INTEREST OF LB, BO, KO, Minors, STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES v. DH and CB (Respondents) and STATE OF WYOMING (Petitioner)

Docket Number: S-13-0095

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: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Peter K. Michael, Chief Deputy Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Christina F. McCabe, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. McCabe.

Representing Appellees DH and CB: No appearance.

Representing Appellee State of Wyoming: Martin L. Hardsocg, Deputy Attorney General; Lisa K. Finkey, Special Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Finkey.

Guardian Ad Litem: Dan S. Wilde and Aaron S. Hockman. Argument by Mr. Hockman.

Date of Decision: January 23, 2014

Facts: The State filed a neglect petition in the interests of BO and KO after the Department of Family Services (DFS) received reports regarding the care the children were receiving from their mother, DH, and stepfather, CB. After DFS’ efforts to reunify BO and KO with DH failed, the juvenile court ordered the children to remain in the custody of their father, SO, and that DFS move to terminate the parental rights of DH to those children. DFS appeals that order, claiming it cannot move to terminate DH’s parental rights because it does not have custody of the children and, therefore, is not an “authorized agency” under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-310(a)(iii).

Issue: Before DFS can be considered an “authorized agency” that may file a petition to terminate one’s parental rights, must DFS have custody of the child or children in question?

Holdings/Conclusion: DFS is an “authorized agency,” pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-310(a)(iii), regardless of whether it has the physical and/or legal custody of the child in question. Thus, the district court’s order, requiring DFS to move forward with a petition to terminate DH’s parental rights to BO and KO, is 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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 9

Summary of Decision January 23, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DONALD GEE v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0142

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

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

Representing Appellant: Donald Gee, Pro se.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; and Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: January 23, 2014

Facts: Donald Gee, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Finding that Gee’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, we affirm the district court’s order.

Issue: Did the district court err in summary dismissal of both [Gee’s] pro se petition for correction of illegal sentence and petition to correct sentence?

Holdings/Conclusion: Gee had multiple opportunities to assert his current sentencing claims and prosecute appeals related to those claims, and he offers no acceptable justification for his failure to do so. Gee’s claims are thus barred by res judicata, and we affirm the decision of 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 quotation, 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 of Order 2014 WY 8

Summary of Order January 22, 2014

Chief Justice Kite delivered the Order for the Court.

Case Name: MICHAEL DALE ISELI v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0192

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

Date of Order: January 22, 2014

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

This matter came before the Court upon “Appellant[’]s Brief / Motion to Appoint Counsel,” filed pro se herein January 7, 2014. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled “no contest” to three felonies: one count of kidnapping and two counts of first degree sexual assault. This is Appellant’s direct appeal from the resulting convictions. On October 30, 2013, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Following a review of the record and the “Anders brief” submitted by appellate counsel, this Court, on November 26, 2013, entered its “Order Granting Permission for Court Appointed Counsel to Withdraw.” That Order notified Appellant that the district court’s “Judgment and Sentence” would be affirmed unless Appellant filed a brief that persuaded this Court that the captioned appeal is not wholly frivolous. Now, after a careful review of Appellant’s Brief, the Court finds that the district court’s “Judgment and Sentence” should be affirmed. This Court finds that Appellant has not provided any precedent or cogent argument to establish that this appeal has merit. Instead, Appellant, for the most part, repeats potential issues that were thoroughly discussed in appellate counsel’s Anders brief. Finally, this Court finds that Appellant’s motion to appoint counsel should be denied, inasmuch as Appellant was already provided appellate counsel, who was allowed to withdraw pursuant to this Court’s Anders brief procedure. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that Appellant’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, filed herein January 7, 2014, be, and the same hereby is, denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the district court’s June 28, 2013, “Judgment and Sentence” be, and the same hereby is, 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 2014 WY 7

Summary of Decision January 16, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DARRYL WADSWORTH v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER TWO

Docket Number: S-13 0029

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

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

Representing Appellant: Erin M. Kendall and Patrick E. Hacker of Hacker, Hacker & Kendall, P.C., Cheyenne, WY. Argument by Mr. Hacker.

Representing Appellee: Dennis W. Lancaster of Lancaster Law Offices, P.C., Afton, WY.

Date of Decision: January 16, 2014

Facts: Lincoln County School District Number Two (the District) notified Darryl Wadsworth, a continuing contract teacher in the District, that his contract was to be terminated on grounds of insubordination, incompetence, and poor work performance. Wadsworth requested a hearing before an independent hearing officer, and following that hearing, the Board of Trustees of Lincoln County School District (the Board) issued an order accepting the hearing officer’s recommendation and conclusion that good cause existed for the termination of Wadsworth’s teaching contract. On appeal, Wadsworth contends that the Board’s order was entered in violation of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Wadsworth’s due process rights because some members of the Board did not attend the entire hearing or otherwise review all of the evidence submitted to the hearing officer.

Issues: 1) Does it violate the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for the Lincoln County School District Number 2 Board of Trustees to fail to review all the evidence before making its decision in the termination hearing of Darryl Wadsworth? 2) Does it violate due process for the Lincoln County School District Number 2 Board of Trustees to fail to review all the evidence before making its decision in the termination hearing of Darryl Wadsworth? 3) Is the decision of the Board invalid because members of the board failed to review the complete record of the hearing, as required by Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-107(k)? 4) Did the district court err in concluding that violations of due process and the APA were not prejudicial to [Wadsworth]?

Holdings/Conclusion: The Board did not violate the Wyoming APA or Wadsworth’s due process rights by accepting the hearing officer’s recommended decision without independently reviewing the entire evidentiary record received by the hearing officer. 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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 6

Summary of Decision January 15, 2014

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

Case Name: ALAN G. MOATS and CHLEO I. MOATS v. PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE, LLC, d/b/a SUMMIT TITLE SERVICES, KUZMA SUCCESS REALTY, and P. OLEN SNIDER, JR.,

Docket Number: S-13-0045

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: J. Kent Rutledge and Shawnna M. Herron* of Lathrop & Rutledge, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Rutledge.

Representing Appellees Professional Assistance, LLC, d/b/a Summit Title Services and P. Olen Snider, Jr.: Kate M. Fox† and Amanda F. Esch of Davis & Cannon, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Esch.

Representing Appellee Kuzma Success Realty: Lindsay A. Woznick and Khale J. Lenhart of Hirst Applegate, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Lenhart.

Date of Decision: January, 2014

Facts: Appellants Alan and Chleo Moats (Moats) sold 850 acres of farm ground, intending to retain the mineral rights for themselves. The deeds prepared by Appellee Professional Assistance, L.L.C., d/b/a Summit Title Services did not reserve the minerals, even after the Moats were made aware of the omission at closing, insisted that it be rectified, and were assured by a Summit employee that the deeds had in fact been corrected. Approximately six years passed before the error was discovered, and the Moats sued Summit, its general counsel Appellee P. Olen Snider, Jr., and Kuzma Success Realty, the brokerage firm involved in the transaction. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all Appellees, finding that the Moats failed to exercise due diligence to discover the error so as to extend the statute of limitation as a matter of law.

Issues: Are there genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Moats exercised reasonable diligence to discover their claims against Appellees under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107(a)(i)(B), and if not, were Appellees entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 56?

Holdings/Conclusion: We find that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Moats exercised due diligence to discover errors allegedly made by Appellee Summit (Professional Assistance L.L.C.), and we therefore reverse the district court’s summary judgment. We also find that Appellee P. Olen Snider, Jr., failed to present a prima facie case that he was entitled to summary judgment, and we also reverse the district court’s summary judgment as to him. We find that the district court correctly found that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to the claims against Kuzma Success Realty, and we therefore affirm summary judgment against it. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

* Order Allowing Withdrawal of Counsel Shawnna M. Herron filed on July 10, 2013
† Notice of Withdrawal of Kate M. Fox filed December 13, 2013

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 2014 WY 5

Summary of Decision January 15, 2014

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

Case Name: MOTZKO COMPANY USA, LLC., a Minnesota Limited Liability Co. v. A & D OILFIELD DOZERS, INC., a Wyoming Corporation

Docket Number: S-13-0096

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: Ronald G. Pretty, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Kurt Kelly and Brandon W. Snyder of MacPherson, Kelly & Thompson, LLC, Rawlins, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: January 15, 2014

Facts: The district court granted A & D Oilfield Dozer, Inc.’s (A & D) motion for summary judgment dismissing Motzko Company USA, LLC’s (Motzko) counterclaim as untimely. After the district court held a bench trial on A & D’s claims and entered judgment, Motzko appealed the district court’s summary judgment order.

The issues on appeal are: 1. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of A & D dismissing Motzko’s counterclaim. 2. Whether Motzko’s counterclaim is moot in light of the district court’s ruling after the bench trial on A & D’s claims. 3. Whether A & D is entitled to attorney fees and costs under W.R.A.P. 10.05.

Holdings/Conclusion: 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 2014 WY 4

Summary of Decision January 14, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: CURTIS F. SYMONS v. WAYNE R. HEATON and TIMOTHY S. TARVER, Co Administrators of the Estate of Gary L. Plachek

Docket Number: S-13-0082

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

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

Representing Appellant: H. W. Rasmussen, Sheridan, WY.

Representing Appellee: Timothy S. Tarver, Sheridan, WY.

Date of Decision: January 14, 2014

Facts: After Gary Plachek died intestate, leaving an estate worth approximately $300,000.00, his friend and caretaker Appellant Curtis Symons (Symons) filed a claim against the estate in the amount of $259,200.00. Symons sought compensation for the care and services that he provided to Plachek during the last nine years of Plachek’s life. After the co-administrators denied Symons’ claim, Symons brought an action against them. The district court disposed of the action upon a motion for summary judgment by the estate, and this appeal followed.

Issues: Symons states his issues as follows: The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Symons’ claim based on an implied-in-fact contract. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Symons’ implied-in-law contract claims.

Holdings: We affirm the district court’s order finding no question of material fact existed and that Symons failed as a matter of law on his claims for implied-in-fact contract, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment.

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 2014 WY 3

Summary of Decision January 7, 2014

District Judge Sharpe delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded.

Case Name: CAMPBELL COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. JAIME A. WILLIAMS PFEIFLE and JOSH PFEIFLE

Docket Number: S-13-0040

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: Billie LM Addleman; and Kara L. Ellsbury of Hirst Applegate, LLP, Cheyenne, WY. Argument by Mr. Addleman.

Representing Appellee: R. Daniel Fleck and Larissa A. McCalla of The Spence Law Firm, LLC, Jackson, WY; and Jeremy D. Michaels of Michaels & Michaels, PC, Gillette, WY. Argument by Mr. Michaels.

Date of Decision: January 7, 2014

Facts: Campbell County Memorial Hospital (“the hospital”) appeals from a district court order denying its motion for partial summary judgment in a medical malpractice action. The district court determined that a government hospital could be vicariously liable for acts of non-employees or independent contractors under the doctrine of ostensible agency. The district court based its ruling on this Court’s decision in Sharsmith v. Hill, 764 P.2d 667 (Wyo. 1988). On appeal, the hospital contends the district court erred in its interpretation of Sharsmith. The hospital asserts Sharsmith did not create an implied waiver of sovereign immunity under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act.

Issues: Appellant Campbell County Memorial Hospital presents the following issue for our consideration: Whether a governmental entity is liable for the negligence of a non-employee under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act.

Appellee Jamie Pfeifle restates the issues as follows: A. Whether the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act applies to Campbell County Memorial Hospital because the hospital obtained liability insurance to cover these circumstances; B. Whether the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act’s remedy provisions apply only to tort claims brought under specific provisions of the Act and do not in any way limit contract-based claims or remedies; C. Whether Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist Amanda Phillips fits the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act’s definition of public employee; and D. Whether Campbell County Memorial Hospital is liable for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist Amanda Phillips’ negligence because the hospital created the appearance that Phillips was the hospital’s employee.

Holdings: We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Summary 2014 WY 2

Summary of Decision January 6, 2014

Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: KEVIN R. CARBAUGH v. NANCY B. NICHOLS, f/k/a NANCY B. CARBAUGH

Docket Number: S-13-0089

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

Representing Appellee: Donna D. Domonkos, Domonkos Law Office, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Date of Decision: January 6, 2014

Facts: The district court modified the custody, visitation, and child support provisions of the decree which divorced these parties. Appellant Kevin Carbaugh (Father) does not challenge the modification, but claims that the district court abused its discretion when it entered a written order which he contends differs from an oral ruling concerning his obligation to reimburse Appellee Nancy Nichols (Mother) for medical and other expenses of one of the parties’ children.

Issues: 1) Did the district court abuse its discretion when it declined to determine the amount Father owed Mother to reimburse her for expenses she had incurred for health care of one of the parties’ children? 2) Is Mother entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.05?

Holdings/Conclusion: The district court properly declined to determine what amount, if any, Father owed Mother for medical expenses, and it did not therefore abuse its discretion in declining to enter an order for a specific amount. Accordingly, we affirm, and we also deny Mother’s motion for attorney fees and costs under W.R.A.P. 10.05.

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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 1

Summary of Decision January 3, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JOY KLOMLIAM v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0072

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

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Michael N. Deegan, Judge

Representing Appellants: Nicholas H. Carter of The Nick Carter Law Firm, P.C., Gillette, WY.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General; Darrell D. Jackson, Faculty Director, Prosecution Assistance Program; David E. Singleton, Student Director, and James Wilson, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Wilson.

Date of Decision: January 3, 2014

Facts: Joy Klomliam entered conditional pleas of guilty to one charge of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and one charge of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, reserving the right to appeal the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress. On appeal, Klomliam contends that the marijuana evidence discovered in her vehicle following a traffic stop should have been suppressed as the product of an unlawful detention under the Wyoming Constitution.

Issues: Klomliam states the issue for our review as follows: Did the District Court err in denying [Klomliam’s] Motion to Suppress when the detention of [Klomliam] exceeded the scope of permissible detention under article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution?

Holdings/Decision: Under the totality of the circumstances, Corporal Parker’s questioning and detention of Klomliam were reasonable and did not violate art. 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. 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]