John F. Raper

The case concerned whether a conviction for driving 63 miles per hour in a 50-mile-per-hour zone could be counted as a moving violation in proceedings to suspend Frank Andrews' driver's license as an habitually reckless or negligent driver under Wyoming statutes. The district court had ruled that the conviction was exempt from consideration due to the language in W.S. 31-5-1201(c) limiting the use of speeding convictions under 75 mph. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exemption applied only to certain revocations and did not bar its use in suspension proceedings under W.S. 31-7-127(b)(i). The court also rejected Andrews' additional challenges regarding notice, due process, findings of fact, substantial evidence, and delegation of authority, finding some waived and others without merit based on statutory text and precedent.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this divorce case, the parties initially listed two cows and a calf as marital property in their filings, though the animals actually belonged to their minor son. After the divorce decree awarded the animals to the husband, the wife sold them the next day and later sought to modify the decree to correct the ownership error. The trial court struck the animals from the decree but held the wife in civil contempt for the sale, ordering her to pay the husband their value plus attorney's fees. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the contempt ruling, holding that because neither party owned the animals, there was no valid court order regarding marital property that the wife had violated in a manner supporting civil contempt sanctions. The court distinguished civil contempt, which aims to coerce compliance, from criminal contempt and found the trial court's order lacked a proper coercive or remedial purpose under the facts.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a divorced mother's request to modify the divorce decree by increasing monthly child support payments from $100 to $200 due to inflation and the child's needs. The district court denied the petition, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the decision. The court reasoned that modifications to divorce decrees require proof of a material or substantial change in circumstances outweighing the interest in finality under res judicata, and that the evidence did not demonstrate such a change, considering the father's compliance with the existing order and the mother's financial decisions. The court also clarified that inflation alone is insufficient unless it substantially and disproportionately affects the parties' financial positions.

family law

This case concerned the Wyoming Insurance Commissioner's authority to regulate private mortgage insurance by withdrawing prior approvals of premium rates and policy forms for Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation and Verex Assurance, Inc. The Commissioner found the rates excessive and discriminatory because Wyoming loss ratios were lower than in other states and identified issues with first-year premiums, renewals, coverage continuation, and earned premiums. The district court affirmed the orders, but the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the Commissioner's consideration was limited improperly to the insurance-against-default feature alone and failed to apply appropriate standards to this distinctive type of insurance product.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved an appeal by Northern Utilities, Inc. challenging a district court's dismissal of its challenge to orders by the Public Service Commission (PSC) concerning applications for utility rate increases. After the appeal was filed, Northern submitted new rate applications in a form acceptable to the PSC, leading to hearings and the abandonment of the original applications. The Wyoming Supreme Court found that the parties had reached agreement and no justiciable controversy remained. It therefore dismissed the appeal as moot, relying on precedents that require dismissal when parties compromise their differences or subsequent events render a merits decision unnecessary.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Jess and Susan Oyler, who left their jobs and moved to Cheyenne after a state official offered Mr. Oyler employment with the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation; when the position did not materialize, the Oylers sued the State and the official for negligence to recover salary losses. The district court dismissed the complaint against both defendants on sovereign immunity grounds. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the claim against the State, holding that the State's liability insurance did not cover the alleged injury and thus immunity was not waived. It reversed dismissal against the individual employee, ruling that state employees lack immunity for negligent performance of ministerial duties even if the initial decision involved discretion, and remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liability