Larry L. Lehman

In Roberts v. Estate of Randall, a snowmobile collision on a groomed forest trail killed one operator and seriously injured the other, prompting a negligence suit by the injured plaintiff and his wife against the deceased's estate. The jury apportioned fault at 74% to the plaintiff and 26% to the defendant, after receiving instructions applying various motor vehicle statutes to the snowmobile operators. The Wyoming Supreme Court held that the statutes from the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways properly govern snowmobile operation for negligence determinations, that the sudden emergency doctrine did not apply on the evidence presented, and that the jury instructions and verdict were proper, resulting in affirmance of the judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an appeal from the denial of workers' compensation benefits to Brett Yenne-Tully, who claimed that his 1997 herniated disc was a second compensable injury stemming from a 1989 workplace fall. The hearing examiner and the Wyoming Supreme Court determined that Yenne-Tully was not entitled to benefits under the second compensable injury rule. The core reasoning was that medical evidence attributed only 30% of the causation to the original work injury, with the majority resulting from cumulative trauma due to normal day-to-day activities outside of work, which is excluded from coverage under Wyoming law.

labor & employment

The case involves claims to federal reserved water rights by non-Indian owners of lands originally allotted to Indians on the Wind River Indian Reservation within the Big Horn River System. The Wyoming Supreme Court addressed whether these "Walton" claimants had established beneficial use of water within a reasonable time after the allotments were transferred from Indian ownership, particularly in relation to the completion of the Wind River Irrigation Project. The court reversed the denial of some claims, holding that claimants could qualify if they showed beneficial use within a reasonable time after project facilities became available, but affirmed that the reasonable time period begins upon transfer from allotment status and does not reset with later Indian purchases, and upheld the weight given to certain historical evidence.

propertyfederal power

This case involved George Griffin’s challenge to the suspension of his driver’s license after he refused a chemical test under Wyoming’s implied consent law following a traffic stop for speeding and erratic driving. The Office of Administrative Hearings upheld the suspension, finding probable cause for arrest based on the officer’s observations and field sobriety tests, and the district court affirmed. On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that the hearing examiner properly admitted the field sobriety test results because the officer’s training and administration methods provided adequate foundation under the rules of evidence. The court further concluded that substantial evidence supported probable cause to arrest for driving while under the influence, including Griffin’s bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol, admission of drinking, difficulty with his license, and poor performance on the tests. The court therefore affirmed the agency’s decision to suspend the license for eighteen months due to the prior DWUI conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a Wyoming prisoner, Kerry Garnett, who sued Dr. John Coyle, a physician providing care at the state penitentiary, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as medical malpractice in the treatment of his carpal tunnel syndrome. The district court granted summary judgment to Dr. Coyle, finding that Garnett had failed to properly plead the § 1983 claim, establish a prima facie Eighth Amendment violation, or present evidence sufficient to support a malpractice action. On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact because Garnett produced no expert medical testimony to show a breach of the standard of care or deliberate indifference, while Dr. Coyle had submitted expert affidavits establishing that the conservative treatment approach and decisions met applicable standards. The court applied standard summary judgment principles, noting that the burden shifted to the plaintiff after the defendant made a prima facie showing, and that contract provisions or NCCHC standards alone could not substitute for expert evidence.

criminal lawcivil rightshealthcareprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether the State Board of Equalization was required to use formal contested case procedures when conducting a 'careful examination' of Sublette County's petition alleging improper ad valorem tax valuations of Exxon's gas production under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-1-304(a)(xiv). Sublette County filed a petition for a writ of mandamus after the Board opted for a less formal regulatory proceeding that involved reviewing submissions and valuations from the Department of Revenue without allowing full party participation or cross-examination. The district court denied the writ, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute mandates a careful examination but does not require contested case procedures, leaving the Board discretion in the format of its regulatory review. The court noted that Sublette County lacked standing for direct judicial review of the Board's report and that mandamus was not appropriate to compel a specific procedural method.

taxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory