Richard V. Thomas

The case involved a medical malpractice suit by Harston against Campbell County Memorial Hospital, alleging the hospital's independent negligence in credentialing and reviewing a physician's staff privileges, as well as failures in protocols, testing, and record-keeping that contributed to patient injuries. The district court restricted Harston's discovery of incident reports and credentialing materials, then granted summary judgment to the hospital on grounds that she had not raised a genuine issue of material fact. On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting discovery without first conducting an in camera inspection and balancing interests under the relevant statute, as required by precedent in Greenwood v. Wierdsma. The court reasoned that Harston was entitled to the opportunity to obtain and use the information before summary judgment could be properly assessed, and remanded the case for further proceedings, while rejecting other jurisdictional and release arguments.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved farmers operating as Diamond Ring Farms who sued Stauffer Chemical Company after the insecticide Dyfonate 20-G failed to control western corn rootworms on their continuous corn crops, resulting in crop damage and related cattle operation losses; they claimed breach of express and implied warranties. A jury awarded damages, but the trial court had limited consequential damages to 1985 crop losses and related profits via summary judgment and addressed issues including Stauffer's attempts to enforce warranty disclaimers and liability limits on product labels. On appeal and cross-appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment in full, finding no reversible error in rulings on warranty enforceability, admissibility of expert testimony and test plot evidence, denial of directed verdict, jury instructions, cost awards, or the scope of recoverable damages.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Lentz Cheatham's conviction for involuntary manslaughter under Wyoming law after his wife died from a subdural hematoma and related complications following an evening of drinking and reported altercations. Cheatham challenged the district court's jurisdiction due to alleged defects in the filing of the information from county court, the admission of his custodial statements, alleged prosecutorial comments on his silence, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the charging documents properly invoked jurisdiction, the statements were admissible, any comments on silence were not reversible error, and the evidence supported the jury's verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

In Lewis v. State, the defendant was charged with aggravated burglary and first-degree arson after breaking into a trailer, stealing items, and setting it on fire; he pleaded not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency but was convicted after a jury trial. On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court addressed whether jury instructions based on 1983 amendments to the mental responsibility statutes— which narrowed the definition of mental illness and shifted the full burden of proof to the defendant—could be applied to offenses committed before the amendments took effect. The court reversed the convictions and remanded the case, holding that the amendments affected substantive rights and could not retroactively govern the defendant's plea, so the jury should have been instructed under the prior statutes that placed the burden on the prosecution to prove mental responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision rested on the principle that procedural changes may apply retroactively but substantive alterations to defenses and burdens of proof may not.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellant Skurdal, who received state drafts for worker's compensation benefits and minor property damage but refused payment in federal reserve notes, demanding instead gold or silver coin or a 32-to-1 exchange ratio based on silver coin prices, while also seeking a declaration that the federal government's issuance of paper currency is unconstitutional. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act and for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Claims Act does not confer authority on state courts to adjudicate challenges to federal monetary powers and that Skurdal presented no relevant legal authority or factual basis showing the state's tender of federal notes violated worker's compensation statutes or constituted inadequate compensation. The court further declined to certify reasonable cause for the appeal and assessed a $100 fee against Skurdal under appellate rules.

federal powerprocedurelabor & employment

This case involves appellant Mark A. Hopkinson's request for grand jury proceedings filed in Uinta County District Court, which was ancillary to a habeas corpus petition. The district court denied the request, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirms that denial on its own motion. The court found the request substantively identical to prior requests rejected in Hopkinson IV and other earlier decisions in the long-running series of cases stemming from Hopkinson's original criminal conviction. Because the related habeas petition had already been denied by this Court in Hopkinson VI, no proceeding was pending, making discovery unavailable under Rule 26(b)(1). The issue was also res judicata, and the trial judge with direct knowledge of the case was the appropriate decision-maker.

criminal lawprocedure

W. Nyles Spurlock, a former school principal, sued parents, teachers, and their attorney for intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional infliction of emotional distress after they lodged complaints with the school board about his performance. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the complaints did not cause Spurlock's discharge and that the emotional distress claim therefore failed. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence showed the board had rejected a hearing officer's recommendation based on those complaints and instead terminated Spurlock due to a separate May 1982 altercation with teachers. The court reasoned that causation is a required element of the interference claim and that undisputed facts established the complaints were not the cause of the discharge.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over water rights in Wyoming's Rock Creek drainage, where Lonesome Fox Corporation, a junior downstream user, petitioned the State Board of Control to declare senior water rights held by the Board of Land Commissioners abandoned due to five years of nonuse under § 41-3-401. The Board of Control found standing for Lonesome Fox and abandoned most of the senior rights, but the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed on the issue of standing. The court held that Lonesome Fox lacked standing because it could not demonstrate that its own water rights would be injuriously affected or abridged by any resumption of use by the senior rights holder, as required by the statute and prior precedents like Cremer v. State Board of Control. Instead, the mere reliance on excess water through a pattern of use was insufficient to confer standing or jurisdiction on the Board. The decision addressed only the standing question and did not reach other issues.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns a water rights dispute in which Wheatland Irrigation District petitioned the Wyoming State Board of Control to declare partial abandonment of Laramie Rivers Company's storage rights in Lake Hattie Reservoir under the state's nonuse statute, alleging five successive years of nonuse of 41,100 acre-feet. Following a prior remand from the Wyoming Supreme Court, the Board ordered abandonment of storage rights above a specified elevation and required a capacity survey by a deadline. Laramie Rivers appealed, raising issues of Wheatland's standing as a junior downstream user potentially injured by any resuscitation of the rights, the Board's disregard of actual water availability, the propriety of partial abandonment measured by elevation rather than quantity, and the validity of the mapping order. The court held that Wheatland had standing because the threat of reapplication of the abandoned rights would injure its interests, and it addressed the Board's authority to order partial abandonment based on elevation while noting statutory provisions on nonuse and forfeiture.

propertyenvironment

The case involved a challenge to a conviction for aggravated vehicular homicide under Wyoming statute § 31-5-1117(a), where the defendant drove while intoxicated with a blood alcohol level of 0.19%, ran a stop sign at high speed, and caused a collision that killed two people. The defendant argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and lacked a causation requirement, and that the state failed to prove voluntary driving and consumption of alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute's constitutionality had been established in prior cases and that the stipulated facts, eyewitness testimony, and other evidence sufficiently established the required elements, including voluntary operation of the vehicle and a causal link to the deaths. The court noted that the defendant's repeated requests that witnesses not report he was driving indicated awareness of the prohibited conduct.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Gary Hodgins, who was charged and convicted of aggravated homicide by vehicle after causing a fatal accident while driving under the influence with a blood alcohol level of 0.24%. Hodgins challenged the constitutionality of the statute under § 31-5-1117(a), arguing it was void for vagueness due to unclear conduct, intent, and causation requirements and violated equal protection by imposing a harsher penalty than for DUI based on the result of death. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute requires proof that the death was proximately caused by driving while intoxicated to a degree rendering the person incapable of safe operation, imports only general criminal intent, and that the legislature may constitutionally classify penalties based on the differing harms caused by the same act.

criminal law

The case concerned M & B Drilling's challenge to a sales and use tax assessment by the Wyoming State Board of Equalization on materials it consumed as a contractor, along with its request for a credit against that assessment for sales taxes it had previously collected and remitted erroneously while acting as a vendor. M & B also sought declaratory relief claiming violations of state statutes and constitutional provisions against double taxation. The district court dismissed the petition for review of the administrative action for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely appeals and failure to pay the taxes first, but addressed the declaratory judgment claim on the merits and ruled against M & B. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the administrative review, held that a declaratory judgment action was unavailable, and affirmed the denial of any credit because the erroneous vendor payments belonged to third-party customers rather than M & B and could not offset its separate contractor tax liability under the governing statutes.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case centered on Arrow Sprinklers' claim that architects Dehnert and his firm intentionally interfered with its contract to install irrigation systems for a school district by recommending termination over the use of plastic sprinkler heads instead of specified brass ones. After a jury awarded Arrow Sprinklers $400,000 in damages, the architects appealed. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the judgment, concluding that the evidence failed to show the architects acted without justification given their contractual role to advise the owner and ensure compliance with specifications. The decision emphasized the architects' authority to recommend changes or terminations and found insufficient proof of improper conduct.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case, Hopkinson V, marks the fifth appeal by Mark A. Hopkinson seeking to vacate his convictions or death sentence for four murders. The appellant moved the district court to reduce his death sentence to life imprisonment under Rule 36 and to stay execution pending further appeals, following prior affirmations of his sentence. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion, ruling that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reduce the sentence because statutes mandate the death penalty upon a jury recommendation and specific procedures govern execution dates and stays. The court stayed execution until disposition of the pending certiorari petition before the U.S. Supreme Court but modified the stay period from 15 to 30 days after mandate issuance.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved trustees of a real estate sales contract suing buyers on a promissory note for accrued interest after the buyers defaulted on installment payments. The buyers defended by claiming the note lacked consideration because the sellers later forfeited the underlying contract and counterclaimed for refunds of prior payments and restitution. The trial court granted summary judgment to the buyers on the note but dismissed their counterclaims. On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment on the note, holding that material questions of fact existed regarding its enforceability and the parties' intent, while affirming the dismissal of the counterclaims. The court applied standard summary judgment review under Rule 56, finding insufficient undisputed facts to resolve the note claim as a matter of law.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether the City of Evanston acquired ownership of oil, gas, and other minerals beneath streets and alleys dedicated to public use in town plats, as asserted by the City and its oil and gas lessees against abutting property owners. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, holding that the City obtained no such mineral rights through the dedications. Under common law applicable to the original 1870 town plat, dedication granted only a public easement without conveying fee title to subsurface minerals. Similarly, the Platting and Dedication Act governing later subdivisions limited the dedication to public use of the surface, leaving mineral ownership with the original dedicators or their successors.

property

In Bjork v. Chrysler Corp., a plaintiff injured in a car accident as a minor settled with the at-fault driver's insurance company via a release containing broad language purporting to discharge all other potentially liable parties, then sued additional defendants including Chrysler Corporation and church officials connected to the sponsored trip. The trial court granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants, concluding that the release satisfied the requirements of Wyoming's Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act and thereby discharged all unidentified tortfeasors. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the statute's provision allowing discharge of other tortfeasors only if the release terms so provide was not met by general catch-all language when the parties intended to release only the specifically named individuals. The court explained that the release and contribution statutes must be read together, with the focus on the contracting parties' intent, so that unidentified non-settling tortfeasors are not discharged without consideration.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a breach of contract dispute between the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and Mills Company over a requirements contract for printing game and fish licenses, originally entered in 1980 with options exercised through 1983. Mills sued after the Commission refused to pay its quoted price for supplemental licenses—ten to sixteen times higher than expected or actual costs—and instead ordered from another printer, while the Commission counterclaimed for alleged overpayments. The court reviewed a summary judgment in Mills' favor, applying standards requiring no genuine issues of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and found the undisputed facts showed the contract terms and bidding history did not support Mills' claims. It reversed the damages award to Mills, directed entry of judgment for the Commission, and denied the counterclaim, while holding that a state residency preference statute for public printing was not violated since Mills was the sole bidder.

business & regulatory

This case arose from tort claims involving a fatal accident and sought to clarify the interplay between Wyoming's Governmental Claims Act, which waives sovereign immunity for certain claims against the state and its employees, and the exclusive-remedy provisions of the Worker's Compensation Act. The Supreme Court of Wyoming denied the State's petition for rehearing of an earlier opinion, explaining that the Claims Act permits injured parties to bring direct tort actions against governmental entities for employee negligence in most circumstances. However, the court held that when the injured party is a governmental employee covered by worker's compensation, the exclusive-remedy rule bars a direct suit against the employer-entity, though claims against co-employees for culpable negligence remain possible. The reasoning centered on the plain language of the statutes, the purpose of balancing equities between injured persons and taxpayers, and the scope of statutory indemnity provisions that protect employees from liability. The decision emphasized that the prior ruling did not require claimants to first obtain judgments against individual employees before pursuing the state.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case was a stockholders' derivative action brought by minority shareholder Pat Patterson against the directors of Lynch Consulting Services, Inc., claiming that Birl Lynch and R.C. Lynch breached their fiduciary duties through self-dealing acts including excessive salaries, management fees paid to their partnership, and a below-market sale of corporate property to themselves. The district court ruled in favor of Patterson on the self-dealing claims, awarding damages, dismissed the claims against director Eunice Lynch and the counterclaim alleging that Patterson had improperly competed with the corporation after resigning, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the judgment after correcting computation errors. The core reasoning was that corporate directors are fiduciaries who must prove the fairness of self-interested transactions with the corporation and that the defendants had not met this burden.

business & regulatory