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 2013 WY 54

Summary of Decision May 8, 2013


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

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

Docket Number: S-12-0177

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

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

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

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

Date of Decision: May 8, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summary 2013 WY 14

Summary of Decision February 1, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court.

Case Name: MAX MAXFIELD, in his individual capacity v. STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0084

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

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

Representing Appellants: Bradley T. Cave, P.C., Holland & Hart LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General.

Date of Decision: February 1, 2013

Facts: Max Maxfield, the Secretary of State for the State of Wyoming, filed a declaratory judgment action in district court challenging the constitutionality of Wyoming’s term limit statute. The State responded, asserting among other claims, that Mr. Maxfield’s complaint did not present a justiciable controversy and, in any event, the statute was constitutional. The Court accepted certification of the issues from the district court.

Certified Questions: The district court certified the following questions to this Court:

1. To proceed under the Wyoming Declaratory Judgment Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-37-101 through 1-37-115, Mr. Maxfield must present a justiciable controversy. To do so, he must show existing and genuine rights or interests, not theoretical ones. Does this case present a justiciable controversy?

2. Is the term limit law for statewide elected officials (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 22-5-103(a)(i)), constitutional and enforceable, or are the qualifications provided by the Wyoming Constitution exclusive?

Holdings: Answering the first certified question, the Court held that Mr. Maxfield has presented a justiciable controversy. Answering the second certified question, the Court held that § 22-5-103(a)(i), the term limit law for statewide elected officials, is unconstitutional with respect to the offices of secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, and superintendent of public instruction and the qualifications for those offices provided by the Wyoming Constitution are exclusive.

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

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summary 2012 WY 66

Summary of Decision May 10, 2012


[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]

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

Case Name: YALE PRESTON v. MARATHON OIL COMPANY and THOMAS SMITH

Docket Number: S-11-0166

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465579

Certified Question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, The Honorable William C. Bryson, Circuit Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Philip A. Nicholas and Mitchell H. Edwards, Nicholas & Tangeman, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Edwards.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Mark R. Ruppert, Joanna R. Vilos and Tyler J. Garrett, Holland & Hart LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Shane P. Coleman, Holland & Hart LLP, Billings, Montana. Argument by Mr. Ruppert.

Date of Decision: May 10, 2012

Facts: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit certified a question regarding the validity of an assignment of intellectual property rights given by Yale Preston to Marathon Oil Company without any additional consideration other than continued at-will employment.

Certified Question: Does continuing the employment of an existing at-will employee constitute adequate consideration to support an agreement containing an intellectual property-assignment provision?

The answer to the question is “yes,” continuation of at-will employment is sufficient consideration for an agreement requiring assignment of intellectual property.

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2011 WY 148

Summary of Decision October 28, 2011

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

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

Case Name:  Araguz v. State, ex rel., Wyo. Workers’ Safety and Comp. Div.

Citation:  2011 WY 148

Docket Number: S-11-0029, S-11-0030

URL:  http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=464691

W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) Certification from the District Court of Laramie County, The Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellants (Petitioners): Robert A. Nicholas, Nicholas & Crank, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent) Wyoming Workers’ Safety & Compensation Division: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee (Respondent) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.: John A. Sundahl, Sundahl, Powers, Kapp & Martin, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: October 28, 2011

Facts:  The appellants, a forklift operator and a yard driver, were injured in separate incidents while working at a distribution center for a major retailer.  After receiving compensation through the company’s private workers’ compensation fund, the appellants filed for benefits under the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act (the Act).  The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (Division) denied their request because they were “not employed in an occupation requiring coverage.”  The appellants requested a contested case hearing and the Division referred the request to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Prior to the hearing, the Division filed a motion for summary judgment asserting, inter alia, that the appellants were not covered by the Act.  In response, the appellants filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment arguing that the Division was required to assess the distribution center as an establishment separate from the company’s retail centers with a primary function of warehousing (an extrahazardous classification) and, therefore, that the appellants were covered by the Act.  OAH granted Appellees’ motions for summary judgment.  The district court certified to this Court the question of whether the appellants should be classified as engaged in extrahazardous employment.

Issue: In granting summary judgment, did the OAH correctly rule that the appellants’ claims were not covered by the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act?

Holdings:  Affirmed.  The company’s Wyoming operations were properly assigned code 452910 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters based on its primary business.  The distribution center is not entitled to its own classification separate from the retail stores.  This coding is not enumerated by the legislature as extrahazardous.  Claimants’ responsibilities, regardless of whether or not extrahazardous, do not alter the company’s primary business activities.  Because the company is not engaged in extrahazardous business activities and did not elect to contribute to the state workers’ compensation fund, the appellants are not entitled to benefits.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2008 WY 152

Summary of Decision issued December 19, 2008

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

Case Name: Sublette Cty. Sch. Dist. #9 et al v. McBride State Superintendent of Pub. Instruction

Citation: 2008 WY 152

Docket Number: S-08-0073

W.R.A.P. 11 Certified Questions from the District Court of Sublette County, the Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge.

Representing Appellant Schools: Mark W. Gifford and Kelley A. Anderson of Law Offices of Gifford & Brinkerhoff, Casper, Wyoming, for Sublette School District #1; Tracy J. Copenhaver of Copenhaver, Kath, Kitchen & Kolpitcke, LLC, Powell, Wyoming for Sublette School District #9 and Lincoln County #1; Ford T. Bussart of Bussart, West & Tyler, PC, Rock Springs, Wyoming, for Campbell School #1; Joel M. Vincent of Vincent & Vincent, Riverton, Wyoming, for Fremont School District #24.

Representing Appellee: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Michael R. O’Donnell, State’s School Finance Counsel, Special Assistant Attorney General.

Certified Questions: Is Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-13-102(c) unconstitutional in light of the amendment to Article 15, Section 17 of the Wyoming Constitution? Do ex post facto principles impact the Wyoming Department of Education’s calculation of rebated revenue if the districts have encumbered, obligated or spent any of the funds sought by the Department?

The issue that first must be determined is whether the 2006 Amendment was impliedly repealed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-13-102(c). If the Amendment was impliedly repealed then the district may well be required to rebate to the Department one hundred percent of the difference between their local funding revenues and the statewide average revenues for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 fiscal years as opposed to the historical amount of seventy-five percent. If it was not repealed then the five school districts are obligated only to rebate the traditional seventy-five percent rebate for those two years and may retain the remaining twenty-five percent, which roughly translates into a collective dispute over $97,550,113.36.
There is no express clear abrogation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-13-102(c). It was necessary for the Court to decide if there was an obvious, clear, and strong conflict between the 2006 Amendment and § 21-13-102(c) in effect at that time. After review, the Court determined that the provisions of the pre-existing statute were not inconsistent with the subsequent constitutional amendment, so there was no basis on which to declare the statute impliedly repealed. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-13-102(c) remained in effect until the Legislature expressly repealed the statue in 2008.
The five appellant school districts also asked the Court to go one step further in declaring that § 21-13-102(c) did not create unconstitutional, wealth-based disparities in the amount of education funding distributed by the State, even with the seventy-five percent cap. The districts argued that unconstitutional inequality was related solely to funding levels that primarily or predominantly depend upon local wealth as opposed to funding levels that simply permit educational enhancements based on local wealth. The Court has never directly considered the constitutionality of the seventy-five percent rebate limit. Previous comments were a neutral observation of the fact that under prior legislation, excess rebate funds could be recaptured by the school districts as a possible source of funding for local enhancements.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that the 2006 Amendment to Wyoming Constitution, Article 15, Section 17, did not impliedly repeal Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-13-102(c). That statute remained in effect until its express repeal in 2008, and the seventy-five percent limit on the special school district property tax rebate imposed by § 21-13-102(c) remained in place for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 fiscal years for all Wyoming school districts. Accordingly, the five Appellant school districts were entitled to recapture any rebate amounts in excess of the seventy-five percent cap and are not now obligated to pay those sums over to the Department. Having so concluded, the Court declined to make any determination on the constitutionality of the now-repealed seventy-five percent cap. Finally, the determination that Appellants are entitled to retain their excess local funds for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 moots the second certified question.
The answer to the District Court’s first Certified Question was “yes” in the sense that § 21-13-102(c) was not impliedly repealed by the 2006 Amendment.

Remanded.

D.J. Donnell delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3lvmoq .

[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. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2008 WY 90

Summary of Decision issued July 31, 2008

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

Case Name: Rogers v. State

Citation: 2008 WY 90

Docket Number: S-07-0115

Certified Question from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Ryan R. Roden, Deputy Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Kirk Allan Morgan, Assistant Appellate Counsel; Scott Mitchel Guthrie, Senior Assistant Public Defender.

Representing Appellee: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Dana Jill Lent, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Rogers was charged with third degree sexual assault. His wife was the alleged victim of that assault. Prior to trial, the State expressed its intent to call LR as a witness to testify against her husband.
The district court certified this question:
Can an alleged victim spouse be compelled by the State of Wyoming to testify against his or her spouse or does the witness-spouse alone have a privilege to refuse to testify adversely and that the witness may neither be compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying?
In the federal system, the application of marital privilege is generally governed by federal common law. Congress has not expressed a particular policy preference regarding marital privilege. The Wyoming legislature however, has implemented policy through legislation. In choosing to provide an exception to spousal privilege, the legislature has decided that in cases of a crime by one spouse against another, the State’s interest in discerning the truth outweighs the State’s interest in preserving marital harmony.

Holding: The marital privilege does not apply when one spouse is charged with a crime against the other. When the exception applies as set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-12-104, the witness spouse may be compelled to testify.

Remanded.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/6ysm6r .

[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. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

SUmmary 2008 WY 71

Summary of Decision issued June 23, 2008

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

Case Name: State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Kunz

Citation: 2008 WY 71

Docket Number: S-07-0177

Certified question from the District Court of Goshen County, the Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Billie Ruth Edwards, Edwards & Johnson, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): No appearance.

Facts/Discussion: The question arose from an apparent conflict in statutory language governing subject matter jurisdiction of circuit courts and statutory language relating to service of process on non-resident motorists.

Answer: The circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over a civil suit brought against a non-resident, where the prayer for recovery requests less than $7,000.00. Circuit courts’ subject matter jurisdiction over civil matters is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-9-128 and is not impacted by the method of service of process. The portion of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-6-301(c) relied upon by State Farm addresses venue and does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on a district court in a civil action where the amount in controversy does not exceed $7,000.00.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/56ljfa .

[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. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]