William U. Hill

This case concerns a petition for writ of review in ongoing civil litigation in Wyoming's Fifth Judicial District Court, Park County, where the petitioner challenged the district court's refusal to consider a pre-judgment motion to revise an earlier ruling on continuance and testimony limits. The district court had applied the holding of Plymale v. Donnelly to treat the motion as a nullity. The Wyoming Supreme Court granted the petition, concluding that Plymale's rule against post-judgment motions for reconsideration does not extend to pre-judgment motions because such motions are consistent with a trial court's authority to revise tentative decisions before final judgment and do not affect appeal timing in the same way. The court therefore reversed the district court's order, remanded for consideration of the motion on its merits, and denied a requested stay of proceedings.

procedure

This case concerned attorney Mary Scheible's petition for reinstatement to the Wyoming State Bar following prior discipline. The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed and adopted the Board of Professional Responsibility's report and recommendation after a hearing that included witness testimony and documentary evidence on Scheible's fitness and compliance efforts. The court granted reinstatement but imposed several conditions, including evaluation and compliance with the Wyoming Professional Assistance Program, two years of mentoring and quarterly reporting to Bar Counsel, completion of continuing legal education hours, and reimbursement of specific amounts to the Client Security Fund and for hearing costs. The conditions were not prerequisites to reinstatement, though material breaches could trigger further proceedings with Bar Counsel bearing the burden of proof. The Board's conclusions, accepted by the court, were that Scheible demonstrated the requisite character, fitness, and competency to practice without detriment to the administration of justice.

procedure

This case involved a mining accident at the Black Thunder Mine where worker Les Butts was severely injured and rendered paraplegic by a falling boulder while operating equipment; his children also sought damages for loss of consortium. Co-employees Michael Hannifan, the safety manager, and Kevin Hampleman, the mine manager, were sued for acting intentionally through willful and wanton misconduct by failing to address known safety hazards, with the employer Thunder Basin Coal Company treated as a nonparty for fault allocation. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgments awarding Butts over $7.7 million and each child $860,000 after a jury found the co-employees 43% at fault under the intentional act standard and the employer 57% under ordinary negligence. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings under the Bertagnolli standard for co-employee liability, that the jury instructions adequately covered the elements of willful and wanton misconduct, and that counsel's closing argument did not warrant a mistrial.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

In Drake v. State, the defendant was convicted via plea of larceny by bailee after selling vehicles financed by a bank through a failed car dealership partnership without repaying the loans, keeping the proceeds instead. After Drake received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge that listed his partner as a creditor, the trial court still ordered him to pay over $88,000 in restitution as part of his criminal sentence. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy discharge did not preclude the restitution because criminal proceedings and restitution orders serve different goals from civil debt collection and are not extinguished by bankruptcy, with no plain error shown in the district court's exercise of its statutory authority.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between divorced parents over the enforcement of a child visitation schedule outlined in their settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the divorce decree. The husband petitioned to hold the wife in contempt for allegedly failing to follow the visitation provisions, particularly due to changes in his work schedule, and argued that the court had impermissibly modified the decree without a formal petition. The district court denied the contempt petition, dismissed it, and ordered the parties to continue adhering to the original schedule while encouraging mediation. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order, primarily because the husband failed to provide a transcript of the hearing, preventing review of the evidence and reasoning below.

family lawprocedure

In Sam v. State, the defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver after police found drugs in his vehicle during a search conducted following his arrest for violating a protection order and driving with a suspended license. The district court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, ruling that the vehicle search was valid as incident to the arrest. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the facts presented—including the officer's knowledge of the protection order violations and the circumstances of the arrest—the search of the passenger compartment was permissible without violating the Wyoming Constitution. The court rejected the argument that additional justification beyond the arrest itself was required for the search in this context.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hubbard v. State, the defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of third-degree sexual assault and one count of immodest, immoral, or indecent acts with a minor, based on incidents involving two teenage victims. He appealed his sentence of 17 to 25 years, arguing that an overbroad Victim Impact Statement and Pre-sentence Investigation Report prejudiced his due process rights at sentencing and that the sentence was disproportionate to his crimes. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that submission of the statements alone did not constitute procedural error or misconduct, that the sentences fell within statutory maximums, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion given the repeated nature of the offenses and the defendant's intent. The court noted that comparisons to other sentences are not undertaken unless the punishment is extreme relative to the offense gravity.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved unmarried parents disputing custody of their young child, where the father petitioned to modify an existing custody and visitation order after the mother repeatedly denied or interfered with his court-ordered visitation, moved out of state without notice, and failed to provide contact information. The district court found a material change in circumstances and granted the father's motion to transfer primary custody to him. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the custody modification, concluding that the mother's persistent interference with visitation justified the change under the best-interests factors in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201, but remanded the case to specify detailed visitation terms as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202 and to address child support. The court also addressed whether the order was appealable under W.R.A.P. 1.05.

family lawprocedure

This case involved adjoining landowners, the Murdocks and David Zier, who disputed ownership of a 1.4-acre strip of agricultural land due to a mistaken boundary line along a county road. Zier claimed title by adverse possession based on his and his predecessors' continuous, open use of the parcel for farming and grazing since at least 1982, without permission from the Murdocks. The district court granted Zier's motion for summary judgment to quiet title in his favor, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the undisputed facts showed the statutory period for adverse possession had run by 1992, vesting title in Zier, and that his later 1998 offer to purchase the land after discovering the true boundary did not interrupt or divest that title.

property

The case involved Jesse Dan Bolin, who was convicted by a jury of two counts of delivering marijuana based on controlled buys arranged with a confidential informant. Bolin appealed, arguing that the trial court committed plain error by allowing police detectives to testify as experts about standard drug investigation procedures and the informant's reliability, and that it erred by permitting him to represent himself at sentencing without confirming a voluntary waiver of counsel. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the challenged testimony did not violate any clear rule of law or improperly vouch for credibility, and that the court had properly offered substitute counsel, which Bolin refused, before allowing him to proceed pro se with awareness of the risks. The decision rested on application of the plain error standard to the unobjected-to evidentiary issues and review of the record regarding the right to counsel at sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

In Monjaras v. State, John Monjaras pled guilty to two counts of third-degree sexual assault for engaging in sexual intercourse with two twelve- and thirteen-year-old students in the 1970s while serving as their teacher. The district court imposed concurrent prison sentences of four to five years rather than probation, and Monjaras appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by failing to explain its sentencing choice or adequately consider probation. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the sentences, holding that they fell well within statutory limits and were lenient given the facts of the case, including the defendant's exploitation of his position of trust. The court reiterated that trial judges need not make specific findings on the record to support a sentencing decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.

criminal law

The case involved Jake Bradshaw, who was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol after his vehicle ran off the road and who refused a breath test following field sobriety tests. Wyoming's implied consent law led the Department of Transportation to recommend an 18-month suspension of his driver's license due to the refusal and his prior offense. Bradshaw requested a contested case hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, which upheld the suspension based on evidence including officer reports and test results; he then appealed through the district court to the Wyoming Supreme Court, arguing the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court affirmed the suspension, concluding that substantial evidence supported the hearing officer's findings on all required elements, including probable cause for the arrest.

criminal lawprocedure

In this worker's compensation case, Bobby Joe Pickens sought permanent total disability benefits under the odd-lot doctrine following back injuries sustained at work in 1990 and 1991. The Workers' Compensation Division denied the claim, and the Medical Commission upheld the denial, finding that Pickens's current disabilities stemmed from unrelated conditions such as diabetes and obesity rather than his compensable injuries. The district court reversed, but the Wyoming Supreme Court reinstated the Commission's decision, holding that Pickens failed to establish eligibility for odd-lot permanent total disability benefits.

labor & employment

In this divorce case, the district court had previously divided the marital estate and ordered the husband to pay child support, alimony, and other amounts, but the husband hid assets abroad to avoid compliance. The wife incurred substantial attorney's fees enforcing the judgment in Wyoming, Florida, and the Bahamas, and the district court awarded her $196,930.17 in fees and costs under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-111. The husband appealed, claiming the statute did not authorize such an award for enforcement efforts and that most fees were unreasonable. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the statute permitted the award in this context and that the husband had not shown an abuse of discretion regarding reasonableness.

family lawprocedure

Larry Finley sought workers' compensation benefits after suffering a seizure and brain injury while on his lunch break at his employer's worksite. The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied the claim, concluding that the injury did not arise out of his employment and may have resulted from alcohol withdrawal. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings granted judgment as a matter of law to the Division because Finley presented no evidence that his employment caused the seizure. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that an injury occurring on the employer's premises is not automatically compensable and that Finley failed to prove the required causal connection to his work under the statutory definition of injury.

labor & employment

The case involved a wrongful death action brought by the estate of Jeffrey Pool, who was killed by a vehicle driven by an off-duty Caza Drilling employee who had consumed alcohol at the company's mancamp in violation of company policy. The plaintiffs alleged that Caza and its supervisor negligently failed to enforce the alcohol prohibition, creating liability for the employee's subsequent drunk driving. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Caza and the supervisor owed no duty of care to Pool under common law principles, Restatement of Torts provisions, or any other recognized theory. The court reasoned that employer liability for employee conduct does not extend to off-premises, off-duty torts in these circumstances, and the connection between the workplace drinking and the accident was too attenuated to establish a legal duty.

torts & liability

In Parrish v. Groathouse Construction, Inc., an electrician working for a subcontractor at a commercial remodeling site sued the general contractor and another subcontractor after tripping on debris on stairs, allegedly injuring his knee and leading to loss of consortium claims by his wife. The claims centered on negligence and failure to maintain a safe work environment. A jury found the plaintiff sixty-five percent at fault under Wyoming's comparative fault statute, resulting in a defense verdict. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the trial court's jury instructions on duties of care, OSHA rules, and handrail statutes, as well as the scope of a fact witness's testimony. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the instructions adequately informed the jury of the law without causing prejudice and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the witness testimony.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Jamie Stanton, an employee of a private company providing court-ordered juvenile justice services, who was convicted by a jury of bribery under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-102(a)(ii) for soliciting money from a client's mother in exchange for influencing her son's case. Stanton moved for acquittal, arguing that he was not a public servant performing a governmental function and that the bribery statute was unconstitutionally vague, but the district court denied the motion and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the evidence showed Stanton was participating in a governmental function through his role in the state-funded juvenile system, satisfying the definition of public servant, and that the statute provided fair notice of prohibited conduct without allowing arbitrary enforcement. It rejected the vagueness claim both facially and as applied, noting that the jury properly applied the statutory definitions to the facts.

criminal law

Carlos Finch appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint, which alleged claims including intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass to chattel, conversion, and various civil rights violations under federal statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Wyoming Supreme Court addressed the appellees' argument that Finch had failed to comply with multiple requirements of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, including errors in the notice of appeal and numerous deficiencies in his appellate brief such as missing tables, statements of issues and facts, proper citations, and appendices. The court agreed that these violations occurred and, exercising its discretion under W.R.A.P. 1.03, summarily affirmed the district court's order dismissing the complaint without further consideration of the merits.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Jane Powell's claim for a spousal elective share of John Fletcher's estate under Wyoming statute after Fletcher died in 2008. Powell had married Fletcher in 1968, separated in 1971, later cohabited with another man, and then married Ralph Takemire in 1995, but she asserted her first marriage remained valid. The probate court denied the claim, applying a presumption that Powell's later marriage to Takemire was valid and thus her prior marriage to Fletcher had been dissolved by divorce. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Powell bore the burden to overcome that presumption with clear and convincing evidence that no divorce had occurred and that her failure to search relevant records or present such proof left the claim unsupported.

family lawproperty