Summary 2014 WY 41

Summary of Decision March 25, 2014

Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WEST PARK HOSPITAL DISTRICT and YELLOWSTONE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER v. BRYAN A. SKORIC, Park County and Prosecuting Attorney, in his official capacity

Docket Numbers: S-13-0110, S-13-0153

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

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

Representing Appellants: Larry B. Jones and Chris Edwards of Simpson, Kepler & Edwards, LLC, the Cody, Wyoming division of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh and Jardine, P.C., Cody, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Jones.

Representing Appellee: James F. Davis, Deputy Park County Attorney, Cody, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: March 25, 2014

Facts: In these consolidated appeals, Appellants West Park Hospital District and Yellowstone Behavioral Health Center challenge the district court’s denial of their petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Park County Attorney to commence court proceedings and to appear at initial emergency detention hearings under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 25-10-109 (LexisNexis 2013), as well as to appear and prosecute the case in chief at the involuntary hospitalization hearings under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 25-10-110 (LexisNexis 2013).

Issues: 1) What are the statutorily required duties of a Wyoming county attorney in civil commitment proceedings under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 25-10-109 and 110? 2) Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ petition for writ of mandamus?

Holdings/Conclusion: We agree with Appellants that the statutes in question do require a county attorney’s office to participate in civil commitment proceedings as they claim it should. However, we also find that the statutes are ambiguous, and that the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by refusing to issue a writ of mandamus. Therefore, although we disagree with the district court as to the county attorney’s duty in civil commitment cases, we affirm.

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 40

Summary of Decision March 21, 2014

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed, as modified.

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

Docket Number: S-13-0141

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: 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; Michael T. Kahler, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2014

Facts: Richard J. Delacastro suffered a work-related injury to his right hip in 2007. In 2009, the State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (the Division) denied, as unrelated to his work injury, requests for testing and treatment of pain in his back. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reversed the Division’s final determination, directed payment of Mr. Delacastro’s outstanding medical bills and ordered that one additional test be performed to determine whether his back problems were associated with his work injury. The parties submitted the results of the test, which were normal, and the hearing examiner ordered that Mr. Delacastro was not entitled to further benefits for his back.

Issues: Mr. Delacastro presents the following issues for this Court’s consideration: 1. Is the OAH’s decision denying all future medical benefits for [Mr. Delacastro’s] ongoing right hip and thigh pain supported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or otherwise contrary to law? 2. Is the OAH’s decision denying additional diagnostic testing supported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or otherwise contrary to law . . .?

The Division phrases the issue on appeal as: In 2007, Delacastro injured his right hip, and the Department ruled this was a compensable work place injury. Nearly two years later, in 2009, Delacastro returned to his physician and underwent an MRI to diagnose “back pain.” The Division denied coverage for Delacastro’s 2009 medical treatment, concluding it was unrelated to his 2007 hip injury. At the contested case hearing, Delacastro argued that he actually injured his back in 2007, not his hip, and this 2007 back injury caused his 2009 symptoms. After ordering further investigation, the hearing examiner ruled that Delacastro failed to meet his burden to prove that he suffered a back injury in 2007 and that this back injury caused his symptoms in 2009. Does substantial evidence support the hearing examiner’s decision?

Holdings: The district court affirmed the OAH decision, and Mr. Delacastro appealed to this Court. We conclude substantial evidence supports the OAH decision that Mr. Delacastro did not satisfy his burden of proving additional testing and treatment of his back were related to his work injury; however, we clarify that future treatment associated with the original hip injury may be submitted for administrative review. We affirm, as modified.

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 39

Summary of Decision March 13, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: RICK D. BODILY v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY & COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-13-0128

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: Stephenson D. Emery of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, WY

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Jessica Y. Frint, Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: March 13, 2014

Facts: Rick Bodily suffered work-related injuries to his back for which he received Worker’s Compensation benefits in 1996 and 2004. In 2008 and 2011, Bodily underwent surgeries to treat a herniated disc in his low back. The Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Division (Division) denied Bodily’s application for benefits to cover the two surgeries and any other expenses after June 2005. Bodily appealed, contending that the herniated disc in his low back was a direct result of his 1996 and 2004 injuries and was therefore a second compensable injury for which he was entitled to benefits. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits, and the district court affirmed. Bodily appeals, claiming that the denial of benefits was contrary to the great weight of the evidence.

Issues: Bodily states the issue on appeal as follows: Is the Office of Administrative Hearings’ decision denying benefits clearly contrary to the great weight of evidence proving a causal connection between Bodily’s 1996 and 2004 work injuries and his pain complaints after 2005 – and resulting surgeries in 2008 and 2011 – such that he suffered a second compensable injury?

Holdings/Conclusion: The OAH decision upholding the Division’s denial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence and not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. 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 38

Summary of Decision March 13, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DANIEL GEORGE SWAN v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0050

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

Appeal from the District Court of Johnson County the Honorable William J. Edelman, Judge

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; and David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Westling.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General; Darrell Jackson, Faculty Director, Prosecution Assistance Program; David Singleton, Student Director; and Daniel Harnick, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Harnick.

Date of Decision: March 13, 2014

Facts: A jury found Daniel Swan guilty of one count of felony child abuse, and he now appeals. He claims that the district court erred by not granting his motion for judgment of acquittal, citing insufficient evidence. He also claims that his right to confrontation was violated because the district court limited questions to the victim regarding inappropriate sexual contact between the victim and his sister.

Issues: Swan presents two issues for our review: 1. The trial court’s limitation of the cross-examination of DM effectively denied the Appellant, Daniel Swan, due process by denying him his constitutional right to confront the witness against him. 2. The evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support a verdict of child abuse and it was an abuse of discretion to deny Mr. Swan’s motion under W.R.Cr.P. 29.

Holdings/Conclusion: Daniel Swan’s right to confrontation was not violated at trial. Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence such that a jury could return a guilty verdict. 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 37

Summary of Decision March 12, 2014

Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. Reversed and remanded.

Case Name: POWDER RIVER BASIN RESOURCE COUNCIL, WYOMING OUTDOOR COUNCIL, EARTHWORKS, and CENTER FOR EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT (formerly OMB WATCH), Appellants (Petitioners), v. WYOMING OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Appellee (Respondent), and HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Appellee (Intervenor).

Docket Number: S-13-0120

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

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Catherine E. Wilking, Judge

Representing Appellants: Timothy J. Preso and Laura D. Beaton of Earthjustice, Bozeman, Montana; Shannon Anderson, Sheridan, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Preso.

Representing Appellee Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: Peter K. Michael, Interim Attorney General; Eric A. Easton, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Easton.

Representing Appellee Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.: Steven L. Leifer of Baker Botts L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; John A. Masterson and Alaina M. Stedillie of Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Leifer.

Date of Decision: March 12, 2014

Facts: Appellants Powder River Basin Resource Council, Wyoming Outdoor Council, Earthworks, and Center for Effective Government appeal from a district court order affirming the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Supervisor’s denial of a public records request.

Issue: Whether the Supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission acted arbitrarily and unlawfully in denying Appellants’ request for public records documenting the identities of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations in the state.

Holdings/Conclusion: We hold that Appellants were required to follow the procedures set forth in the WPRA, which they did not do. The WPRA requires the district court to independently determine whether information must be disclosed or not, rather than to review a decision of the Supervisor as an administrative decision.
This appeal also raises the question of how trade secrets are defined under the WPRA, a question that can be answered as a matter of law on this record, and one we find to be appropriate to address in the interest of judicial economy. We decide that the Supervisor and the courts should apply the definition developed in federal case law under the Freedom of Information Act. We decline to determine whether individual chemical ingredients can be trade secrets because that is not solely a question of law and it cannot be decided on the record before us. We reverse and remand 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 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 36

Summary of Decision March 12, 2014

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

Case Name: MICHAEL LEE COOPER v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0215

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

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General; Caitlin F. Young, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Young.

Date of Decision: March 12, 2014

Facts: Mr. Cooper challenges his conviction for aggravated assault by threatening to use a drawn deadly weapon. He asserts his trial counsel was ineffective because she failed to call an expert witness; the district court improperly instructed the jury on the law of self defense; and there was insufficient evidence of a threat to support the jury’s guilty verdict.

Issues: Mr. Cooper presents the following issues on appeal: I.Was Mr. Cooper denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel? II. Was the jury improperly instructed on the law? III. Was the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s verdict on the crime charged? Though stated in more detail, the State presents similar issues.

Holdings/Conclusion: We conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict but that Mr. Cooper did not receive effective assistance of counsel and the jury was improperly instructed on self defense. We, therefore, reverse and remand 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 2014 WY 35

Summary of Decision March 11, 2014

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF TARA L. KOBIELUSZ: CIRCLE C RESOURCES, INC. v. TARA L. KOBIELUSZ, and STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-13-0085

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

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County the Honorable Catherine E. Wilking, Judge

Representing Appellant: Keith R. Nachbar, Keith R. Nachbar, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee, Tara L. Kobielusz: P. Craig Silva, Williams, Porter, Day and Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee, Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division: No appearance.

Date of Decision: March 11, 2014

Facts: Appellant, Circle C Resources, Inc. (“Circle C”), challenges a decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings awarding worker’s compensation benefits to Appellee, Tara Kobielusz. Circle C contends the hearing examiner erred in finding that Ms. Kobielusz was Circle C’s employee, rather than an independent contractor.

Issues: Was the hearing examiner’s determination that Ms. Kobielusz was not an independent contractor as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102 (a)(xxiii) supported by substantial evidence?

Holdings/Conclusion: Ultimately, because the evidence supports the hearing examiner’s findings that none of the elements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xxiii) were satisfied in this case, we find no prejudice as a result of the hearing examiner’s analysis. 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 34

Summary of Decision March 10, 2014

Justice Burke delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JOSEPH DAX v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0222

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

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Daniel L. Forgey, Judge

Representing Appellant: Pro se.

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

Date of Decision: March 10, 2014

Facts: Appellant, Joseph Dax, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Issue: The dispositive issue in this case is whether Mr. Dax’s motion to correct an illegal sentence is barred by res judicata.

Holdings/Conclusion: We agree with the district court that this motion is barred by res judicata, and affirm.

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 33

Summary of Decision March 5, 2014

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

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

Docket Number: S-13-0115

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

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

Representing Appellant: Donna D. Domonkos, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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

Date of Decision: March 5, 2014

Facts: The State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (the Division) denied Bennie Johnson’s requests for preauthorization of bilateral total knee replacements and payment of other medical bills associated with his knees on the grounds the current condition of his knees was not related to a 1992 work injury. The Medical Commission held a contested case hearing and upheld the Division’s decision. During the hearing it admitted into evidence, over Mr. Johnson’s objection, three exhibits.

Issues: Mr. Johnson presents the following issues for this Court’s consideration: ISSUE I. Whether the Commission acted arbitrarily, capriciously or otherwise not in accordance with the law when it admitted into evidence unreliable and irrelevant evidence over objection. ISSUE II. Whether the [Medical Commission’s] decision is supported by substantial evidence. The Division presents the same issues, although they are phrased differently.

Holdings/Conclusion: We conclude the Medical Commission did not commit prejudicial error by admitting the exhibits and substantial evidence supports its decision. We, therefore, affirm.

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 32

Summary of Decision March 4, 2014

Justice Golden (Ret.) delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: THE COURTENAY C. AND LUCY PATTEN DAVIS FOUNDATION AND AMY DAVIS, Individually v. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION, UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING FOUNDATION AND C.C. DAVIS AND CO., LLC, A Wyoming Limited Liability Company, and GREGORY A. PHILLIPS, WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, in his official capacity.

Docket Number: S-13-0121

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 Appellants: Steve Miller of Steve A. Miller, P.C., Denver, Colorado; Gay Woodhouse and Tara B. Nethercott of Woodhouse Roden Nethercott, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Miller.

Representing Appellees Colorado State University Research Foundation, University of Wyoming Foundation, and C.C. Davis And Co., LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company: Michael J. Sullivan and Alaina M. Stedillie of Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Sullivan.

Representing Appellee Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General, In His Official Capacity: No Appearance.

Date of Decision: March 4, 2014

Facts: In 1997, the Courtenay C. Davis Foundation and Amy Davis (collectively “the Davis Interests”) entered into an agreement with the Colorado State University Research Foundation and the University of Wyoming Foundation (“the University Foundations”). Through that agreement, the Davis Interests gifted land and other interests to the University Foundations, subject to the terms of the agreement. In 2011, the University Foundations decided to sell the gifted property. The Davis Interests filed an action in district court seeking to enjoin the sale of the gifted property, and the district court dismissed the action after finding that the Davis Interests lacked standing to bring the action.

Issues: The Davis Interests state the issues on appeal as: 1) Did the district court err in finding [the Davis Interests] lacked standing? 2) [Do the Davis Interests] have standing as a management committee member?
The University Foundations phrase the issues on appeal as: 1) Was the transaction between the Davis Interests (Appellants) and the University Foundations (Appellees) a gift, or, as claimed by the Appellants, did it create an implied trust? 2) In either event, do the Appellants have standing? 3) Is the issue raised by Appellants concerning the Davis Interests’ entitlement to appoint a member to the five member Ranch Management committee and Amy Davis' role as an unpaid consultant a new argument that has been waived? 4) If it is not a new issue, do the Davis Interests’ entitlement to appoint a member to the five member Ranch Management committee or Amy Davis’ role as an unpaid consultant support Appellants’ standing argument?

Holdings/Conclusion: The district court correctly concluded that the donation from the Davis Interests to the University Foundations was a gift, that the MOA did not create an implied trust, and that only the attorney general has standing to enforce the terms of a charitable gift. We thus affirm the court’s dismissal of the complaint and amended complaint for lack of standing.

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.]