Summary 2013 WY 99

Summary of Decision August 15, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: ERIC LEVANTER DEMILLARD v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0235

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

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

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

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jessica Y. Frint, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Frint.

Date of Decision: August 15, 2013

Facts: Appellant, Eric DeMillard, challenges an order from the district court revoking his probation. He contends the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation because the conduct violating the terms of his probation was not “willful.” He also claims the district court exceeded statutory authority by ordering involuntary administration of medication in order to restore his competency during the probation revocation proceedings.

Issues: 1. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it revoked Appellant’s probation?
2. Did the district court err in granting the State’s Motion for Involuntary Medication to restore Appellant to competency?

Holdings: The district court did not err in ordering the involuntary administration of medication to restore Appellant’s competency for the probation revocation proceedings. 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 2011 WY 13

Summary of Decision February 1, 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: Gronberg v. Teton County Housing Authority

Citation: 2011 WY 13

Docket Number: S 10 0018

URL: http://tinyurl.com/4wev8no

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, The Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): Peter F. Moyer, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendant) Teton County Housing Authority: James L. Radda, Deputy County Attorney, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees (Defendants) Mantey: Andrea L. Richard of Richard Law Firm, Jackson, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: February 1, 2011

Facts: Appellants sued the Appellees, claiming they violated Wyoming’s Public Meetings Act, improperly purchased land for investment purposes and incurred debt in violation of the Wyoming Constitution and Wyoming Statutes. The district court dismissed some claims under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee on other claims. Appellants appealed those rulings.

Issues: I. Whether Appellee could ratify a real estate sale over 9 months after an illegal meeting occurred approving the transaction and over 4 months after the actual closing, where Appellee acknowledged that the only vote at the meeting was taken during a secret executive session resulting in a “null and void” approval? II. Whether after the real estate closing occurred, is Appellee, as a public Wyoming agency, entitled to keep secret an 8 page transcript and tape recording of the illegal meeting, where it improperly approved the expenditure of $2.1 Million in public funds for the real estate purchase? III. Whether Appellee is entitled to pursue a “land banking” real estate investment program, not housing projects, where the applicable specific purpose excise tax (SPET) funding was approved by the voters for “affordable housing projects,” and Wyoming Statutes limit the use of SPET funds to the purposes approved by the voters, and where Wyoming Statutes strictly limit investments by public agencies? IV. Whether Appellee as a public Wyoming agency, is entitled to mortgage its properties and to pledge future tax receipts? V. Whether Appellants can present these issues in a declaratory judgment action?

Holdings: The Court found the purpose of Wyoming’s Public Meetings Act is to require open decision making, not to permanently condemn a decision or vote in violation of the Act, therefore holding that an agency may “cure” a “void” action made in violation of the Public Meetings Act by conducting a new and substantial reconsideration of the action in a manner which complies with the Act.

The Court found the factual issue remained as to whether Appellee purchased the property as an investment, or for direct use as part of an affordable housing and project and held that the district court improperly dismissed the Appellants’ claim demanding a record of the session.

The Court found that purchase of property for direct utilization in an affordable housing project was authorized by the SPET ballot, where purchase of property for indirect utilization was not authorized. The Court further found that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 15-10-103(a)(viii) is unambiguous, and Appellee could only invest in property if that property was such that a savings bank could invest in it, holding that the district court erroneously dismissed this claim.

The Court also found that the district court incorrectly determined that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 15-10-103 authorized the Appellee housing authority to purchase land for any purpose and to borrow funds for any purpose. That statute does not authorize borrowing. In addition, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 15-10-108, provides specific limitations on when borrowing may occur and does not authorize borrowing to purchase property as an investment.

In regards to the constitutional debt limit issue, the Court observed that the Appellee housing authority was simply an agent of the county, and that the county is clearly subject to the debt limits of Wyoming Constitution Article 16, §§ 3, 4, and 5. However, the Court found that debt properly incurred under the Housing Projects Statutes, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 15-10-101 et. seq., is not limited by Wyoming Constitution Article 16, §§ 3, 4, or 5. The district court’s dismissal of the Appellants’ constitutional claims was appropriate.

In summary, the Court affirmed the district court on the Public Meetings Act and Wyoming Constitutional issues, but reversed on the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals of claims for improperly purchasing the land and financing the purchase. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

District Judge Kautz delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2007 WY 97

Summary of Decision issued June 19, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

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

Case Name: Qwest Corp. v. The Public Service Commission of WY and Silver Star Comm., Inc.

Citation: 2007 WY 97

Docket Number: 06-102

W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) Certification from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Paul J. Hickey and Roger C. Fransen, Hickey & Evans, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Barbara J. Brohl, Qwest Corp., Denver, Colorado. Argument by Mr. Hickey.

Representing Appellee Public Service Commission of WY (Respondent): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; Ryan Schelhaas, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Stephani Anesi, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Anesi.

Representing Appellee Silver Star Comm., Inc. (Intervenor): James K. Sanderson, Sanderson Law Office, Afton, Wyoming; Bruce Asay, Associated Legal Group, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Sanderson.

Counsel for Amicus Curiae: Christopher Petrie, Wyoming Office of Consumer Advocate.

Issue: Whether the PSC exceeded its statutory authority when it ordered Qwest to prepare and submit an exchange-specific TSLRIC Study for the Afton Exchange.

Facts/Discussion: Qwest questions the authority pf the WY Public Service Commission (PSC) under the Wyoming Telecommunications Act of 1995. In an administrative proceeding, the PSC rejected Qwest’s 21004 Total Service Long-Run Incremental Cost Study (TSLRIC) and ordered Qwest to submit an exchange-specific study for the Afton, WY Exchange. Qwest contended that the PSC lacked statutory authority to order a TSLRIC for the Afton Exchange.
Standard of Review: The sole issue is the extent of PSC’s statutory authority. As set forth in the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, the Court will interpret the statutory provisions, and set aside the agency’s action if it exceeds its authority. TSLRIC Studies help to promote competition because they set a floor price for telecommunications services. Telecommunications providers must submit TSLRIC Studies to the PSC for review and approval at least once every three years.
Jurisdiction: The W.R.A.P. provide that a timely petition for rehearing extends the deadline for seeking judicial review of an agency decision. Qwest’s petition for rehearing tolled the appeal deadline; the petition for review was timely and the Court had jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
Qwest’s Arguments: Qwest argued that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-202(a) limited the PSC’s authority to regulate prices and to require TSLRIC studies; that the PSC exceeded its authority because the TSLRIC was not necessary and that PSC’s order requiring it to prepare the TSLRIC was discriminatory. Qwest and Silver Star differed in their method of averaging costs in the Afton are with costs in other parts of the state. The PSC found that Qwest had not met its burden of demonstrating significant differences in the cost of services but concluded that Qwest did not have to disaggregate TSLRIC costs separately for each of its Wyoming Exchanges. The PSC therefore ordered Qwest to prepare and submit an exchange-specific TSLRIC Study for the Afton Exchange. Under the Act, the PSC may designate certain telecommunications services as competitive. The PSC designated services in the Afton Exchange as competitive and not subject to regulation. Qwest argued that the PSC lacked the authority to require the TSLRIC. The statute authorizes TSLRIC Studies to be used to regulate prices in addition to other uses. The Court interpreted Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-202(a) as prohibiting the PSC from regulating prices in competitive markets but not prohibiting the PSC from requiring TSLRIC Studies for competitive markets for purposes other than regulating prices. The Court concluded that the PSC had authority under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-402(a) to require PSLRIC Studies for competitive and noncompetitive markets. The statute indicated the legislature deemed TSLRIC Studies necessary and relevant to the extent required under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-15-401(a)(iv). Qwest complained of unreasonable discrimination noting that the PSC ruled that Silver Star did not have to file a TSLRIC Study for the Afton Exchange because it was a competitive market. And now, in the current case, the PSC has used contrary reasoning and reached the opposite ruling. The Court stated that if the PSC has not applied the statute as written to Silver Star, it has the authority to correct the oversight.

Holding: The plain language of the Act provided statutory authority for the PSC to require TSLRIC Studies for competitive markets. The PSC did not exceed its statutory authority when it ordered Qwest to prepare and submit an exchange-specific TSLRIC Study for the Afton Exchange.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/22nhdh .