Barton R. Voigt

This case involved a long-running dispute over ranch property in Wyoming, where Simek sought to enforce a purchase option from the estate of the prior owner and the parties reached multiple settlement agreements, including an oral 2005 agreement for Simek to buy the retained residential parcel. The district court enforced the 2005 oral agreement after an evidentiary hearing, and Simek appealed, challenging the hearing format, the rejection of an earlier written agreement, and the enforceability of the oral deal under the statute of frauds. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the estate's partial performance—transferring the property key to Simek—removed the agreement from the statute of frauds under equitable principles, allowing enforcement despite the lack of a signed writing. The court also upheld the denial of the earlier agreement because it had been rejected by the Illinois probate court and found no error in conducting part of the hearing by telephone.

propertyprocedure

In Cosco v. Lampert, an inmate filed two civil actions against the Wyoming Department of Corrections alleging wrongful deprivation of personal property, including hobby materials confiscated after stricter prison regulations and religious items lost or destroyed during a transfer to an out-of-state facility. The district court consolidated and dismissed the claims with prejudice, concluding there was no waiver of governmental immunity under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act and that Cosco had not timely filed the required notice of claim with the proper state entity. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding the claims were barred by the absence of an immunity waiver and failure to follow statutory claim procedures, rejected constitutional arguments under due process, equal protection, and religious liberty provisions due to insufficient allegations, and declined to fashion a new judicial remedy while barring Cosco from future related filings without permission.

criminal lawcivil rightspropertyprocedure

This case concerns attorney William Daniel Elsom's petition to lift a disciplinary suspension and be reinstated to practice law in Wyoming following a criminal conviction. The Board of Professional Responsibility held a hearing, found that Elsom had met the conditions of his suspension, expressed remorse, and demonstrated fitness to practice, and recommended reinstatement. The Wyoming Supreme Court adopted the Board's findings in part, lifted the disciplinary suspension, but denied reinstatement because Elsom remained under a separate CLE suspension with no recommendation for reinstatement from the Board of Continuing Legal Education. The court reasoned that the prior suspension order required resolution of the CLE matter as an independent condition before full reinstatement could occur.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute between a junkyard operator and the City of Rawlins over the legality of operating the business on multiple parcels subject to zoning rules adopted in 1978 and 1989, a 1982 settlement agreement from prior litigation, and a municipal nuisance ordinance. The district court granted partial summary judgment enforcing the settlement agreement against the owner, requiring removal of operations from residential areas and compliance with the Wyoming Junkyard Control Act, while leaving factual questions about abandonment and grandfathered rights for trial; it also upheld a municipal court conviction for the nuisance violation. On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the settlement agreement was valid and binding as a covenant running with the land, thereby eliminating grandfathered rights in non-industrial zones, but remanding for further findings on whether junkyard use had been abandoned in certain industrial-zoned areas outside the fenced operation.

propertybusiness & regulatorycriminal law

This case concerns a dispute between two homeowners associations over authority to regulate fishing and recreational activities at the Crescent H Ranch in Wyoming. The First Filing Association argued that Rules and Regulations it adopted with the Fourth Filing Association created a binding contract for joint regulation, while the Fourth Filing Association and an intervenor contended that the Fourth Filing Association held sole regulatory authority under prior agreements. The district court granted summary judgment to the Fourth Filing Association, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the Rules and Regulations lacked consideration and did not form a contract, and that uniform Fishing License and Use Agreements from a 1997 bankruptcy settlement—recorded in land records and superseding prior instruments—reserved regulatory power exclusively to the Licensor, which had been assigned to the Fourth Filing Association. The First Filing Association was not a Licensor and thus had no joint authority.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Exxon Mobil Corporation's challenge to the Wyoming Department of Revenue's taxation of natural gas produced at its LaBarge Project for 2005. The disputes concerned whether the Black Canyon dehydration facility constituted the statutory "initial dehydrator" for purposes of determining the point of valuation under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-14-203(b)(iv) and whether post-processing transportation expenses were properly excluded from the direct cost ratio when applying the proportionate profits valuation method under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-14-203(b)(vi)(D). The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the Board of Equalization's rulings on both issues, concluding that Black Canyon was a processing facility rather than the initial dehydrator and that the statute required inclusion of the transportation costs in the direct cost ratio, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned ExxonMobil's challenge to the Wyoming Department of Revenue's valuation of natural gas produced at its LaBarge Project for severance tax purposes in 2005. The dispute centered on two issues: whether the Black Canyon dehydration facility qualified as the statutory 'initial dehydrator' under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-14-203(b)(iv) and whether post-processing transportation costs should be deducted from gross revenues or included in the direct cost ratio of the proportionate profits valuation method under § 39-14-203(b)(vi)(D). The Board of Equalization upheld the Department's positions on both points. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed, holding that Black Canyon was a processing facility rather than the initial dehydrator and that the statute required inclusion of the transportation costs in the direct cost ratio, and it remanded for recalculation of the tax.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a disciplinary proceeding by the Wyoming State Bar against attorney John Craig Abraham for professional misconduct in three client matters. The attorney had failed to diligently pursue the cases and communicate adequately with clients, violating Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct, including issues arising in a criminal drug possession representation and a divorce action. The Wyoming Supreme Court approved the Board of Professional Responsibility's report and recommendation, ordering a public censure along with requirements for mentoring, a probationary period until January 1, 2012, and payment of costs and fees. The decision was based on the attorney's stipulations to the facts, the presence of aggravating factors such as a prior reprimand and pattern of misconduct, and mitigating factors like the absence of dishonest motive.

procedurecriminal lawfamily law

The case involved neighbors Ernest and Martha Anderson challenging the Teton County Board of Commissioners' approval of building and grading permits for a 6,750 square-foot barn/equestrian center on adjacent property owned by Robert and Gisela Baltensperger. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the structure qualified as an accessory use to the existing residence under the county's land development regulations and did not require a variance. The court reasoned that the regulations only require findings on neighborhood impact for variance applications, not for standard building permits, and that private covenants are not enforceable through the permitting process.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned neighbors' challenge to Teton County's issuance of building and grading permits allowing construction of a 6,750-square-foot barn/equestrian center on adjacent property in a single-family zoning district. After two prior proposals were withdrawn due to variance requirements, the county approved the third application without a variance because the structure was deemed an accessory use to the existing residence. The Andersons appealed, contending the approvals rested on conclusory findings, injured the neighborhood, and violated private covenants, but the court held that the conclusory-findings argument was not preserved below, that the land development regulations do not require neighborhood-injury or covenant analysis for non-variance permits, and that substantial evidence supported the accessory-use determination. The district court's affirmance of the Board was therefore upheld.

propertyprocedure

In Moore v. State, Timothy Moore appealed a district court order clarifying the structure of his four felony sentences from 2002 convictions for aggravated burglary, kidnapping, and blackmail, contending that a 2004 sentence reduction order had made all sentences concurrent. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's September 2008 clarification order, which held that Moore was serving two consecutive terms of five to eight years each. The court reasoned that Moore's arguments were barred by res judicata, as the same claims about concurrency had been denied in a 2005 order that he did not appeal, and the later clarification was consistent with that denial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal by Aaron M. Ross from a February 20, 2009, Judgment and Sentence entered by a district court. Appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw under Anders v. California, asserting that the appeal was frivolous, and the court granted the motion while allowing Ross until August 7, 2009, to file a pro se brief demonstrating that the appeal had merit. Ross did not file any brief or pleading by the deadline. The court therefore concluded that the appeal was wholly frivolous and affirmed the district court's Judgment and Sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, MDW appealed the district court's order terminating her parental rights to her two daughters after they were placed in foster care following her positive drug test and neglect admissions in 2005. The Department of Family Services had developed a case plan requiring stable housing and employment, substance abuse treatment, counseling, drug testing, and appropriate visitation, but after nearly two years the mother showed insufficient progress including continued drug use, unstable living arrangements, missed appointments, and noncooperation. The district court found clear and convincing evidence under Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-309(a)(iii) that the children had been neglected, reasonable rehabilitation efforts by the Department had failed, and returning the children would jeopardize their health and safety; it also terminated rights under a second statutory provision based on the children's time in state care and parental unfitness. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the termination findings on the first ground and that it was unnecessary to address the second independent basis.

family law

This case is an attorney discipline proceeding against Respondent arising from three formal charges by the Wyoming State Bar. Two charges involved alleged improper communication with a represented person and failure to timely file a pleading, with the latter admitted by the attorney. The third charge centered on the attorney filing a motion in a domestic relations case that accused a judge of improper ex parte communications and favoritism without conducting a reasonable investigation to verify the claims. The court determined that the attorney violated Rule 8.2(a) by making statements about the judge with reckless disregard for their truth, and it ordered suspension from the practice of law along with assessment of costs, based on the lack of evidentiary support for the allegations and the requirements of professional conduct rules such as Rule 11.

procedure

This case concerns Dale Wayne Eaton, who faces a death sentence in Wyoming. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of certiorari on his appeal, Eaton's counsel notified the court of intent to file a timely state post-conviction relief petition under Wyoming statutes. The Wyoming Supreme Court ordered that the existing stay of execution be continued pending the filing and during the pendency of that petition, consistent with its prior precedent in Harlow v. State. The court directed Eaton's counsel to promptly report the filing and the state district court's disposition of the petition, after which further orders could be issued as needed.

criminal lawprocedure

In Schmidt v. Killmer, general partners in an oil and gas partnership sued the liquidating trustee and others after the partnership's dissolution, alleging that asset distributions deviated from the partnership agreement. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had expressly consented to the liquidation plan—Schmidt via ballot and Melcher via a settlement agreement—and were fully informed of its terms at the time, precluding later challenges based on deviations from the original agreement. The decision rested on principles of consent and ratification in fiduciary contexts without evidence of fraud or improper conduct.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with two counts of first-degree sexual assault and three counts of third-degree sexual assault against a female juvenile under age 14. A jury convicted him on all counts, and he appealed, arguing that the Information and supporting affidavit failed to provide adequate notice of the charges, that there was a fatal variance between the alleged facts and those proven at trial, and that the district court erred in allowing a post-trial amendment to conform the Information to the evidence. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the charging documents sufficiently informed the defendant of the nature of the accusations under constitutional and procedural requirements, that any variance was not prejudicial because the timing of events was not an essential element and the defendant was not misled, and that the amendment did not charge a new offense or violate due process. The court emphasized that the defendant had clear notice the alleged incidents occurred during the period he lived in the victim's grandmother's home.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved five Wyoming school districts filing a declaratory judgment action to determine whether Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-13-102(c), which capped at 75% the amount of excess local property tax revenue that wealthier districts must rebate to the state for redistribution to other districts, remained constitutional after voters approved a 2006 amendment to Article 15, Section 17 of the Wyoming Constitution that eliminated any such limit on recapture. The districts also sought a ruling that any repeal of the statutory cap could not apply retroactively to funds already encumbered or spent. The Wyoming Supreme Court addressed two certified questions on the statute's ongoing validity and the applicability of ex post facto principles. The court held that the 2006 amendment impliedly repealed the statutory 75% limitation effective upon its adoption because the amendment's language unambiguously authorized full recapture of excess revenues to equalize funding, superseding the prior statutory restriction without need for legislative action.

taxescivil rights

This case involved a dispute between Campbell County, Wyoming, and Rio Tinto Energy America over the calculation of interest on additional ad valorem taxes owed after an audit of coal mine production revealed underpayments in tax years 1999 and 2000 and an overpayment in 2001. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's reversal of the county's interest calculation, holding that the county must offset the overpayment against the underpayments across tax years to determine the net deficiency before accruing interest. The court reasoned that the plain language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-14-108(c)(i) unambiguously requires computing a net deficiency amount by subtracting any offsetting credit within the scope of the audit period, without limiting offsets to the same tax year, and that the county's narrower interpretation failed to give effect to the statute's text.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a challenge to a district court's warrant for executing a death sentence in Eaton v. State. The Wyoming Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of review, finding the warrant defective for failing to specify an exact execution date as required by statute and prior remand order. The court vacated the warrant, set December 19, 2008, as the execution date, and stayed the execution pending the defendant's timely petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, following procedures from a similar prior case. The court retained jurisdiction to monitor the status of the federal petition.

criminal lawprocedure