Court Summaries

• Citation: Vol. 48 No. 5 Pg. 38
• Year: 2025
• Pages: 38

Court Summaries Vol. 48 5 Pg. 38 Wyoming Bar Journal October, 2025

Emily S. Madden

Emily Madden is an Associate at The Spence Law Firm, LLC in Casper, Wyoming.

Ellis v. Hiser, 2025 WY 87 (Aug. 5, 2025)

In Ellis v. Hiser, the Wyoming Supreme Court overturned recent precedent interpreting Wyoming's general savings statute, § 1-3-118.

Burke McCarthy died in October 2018. In February 2021, his wrongful death representative filed a lawsuit against Dr. Hiser and Wyoming Medical Center. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case exactly two years later, then refiled the lawsuit in December 2023. Dr. Hiser, who was never served in the first suit, moved to dismiss, arguing it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations governing wrongful death claims.^[1] The plaintiff countered that the refiled suit was timely under the savings statute, which allows a new action to be filed within one year if a timely-filed case "fails otherwise than upon the merits." The plaintiff also relied on Hugus v. Reeder, a 2022 Wyoming Supreme Court case holding that voluntary dismissals qualify as a failure "otherwise than upon the merits" sufficient to trigger the savings statute. Dr. Hiser's motion to dismiss was granted.

On appeal, the Court revisited Hugus and expressly overruled it. The majority concluded that applying the savings statute to voluntary dismissals invites strategic misuse and undermines the purpose of statutes of limitations. Interpreting the text of the statute, the Court found the word "fail" does not encompass a plaintiff's voluntary dismissal. Therefore, the district court's dismissal was affirmed.

Justice Fenn, joined by Chief Justice Boomgaarden, dissented. The dissent emphasized principles of stare decisis, warning against overturning Hugus only three years after it was decided. It noted that courts are divided on whether voluntary dismissals qualify as failures "otherwise than upon the merits," and that this split was well known when Hugus was issued. In the dissent's view, the majority's shift reflects frustration with district courts' failure to enforce service deadlines under Rule 4(m), rather than a flaw in Hugus itself. The dissent concluded that Hugus was not poorly reasoned and remains workable.

In the Matter of the Sanction Fee Christopher Goetz, 2025 WY 84 (July 29, 2025)

Attorney Goetz was appointed to represent a defendant in a felony case. The district court scheduled a hearing for 9:30 a.m. on October 10, 2024. That morning, Goetz appeared at a 9:00 a.m. hearing in circuit court, expecting it to conclude before the district court proceeding. At 9:37 a.m., the district court went on the record with the prosecutor and defendant present, but Goetz absent. After learning Goetz was still in circuit court—and that he had not filed any notice or motion—the district court recessed. At 10:16 a.m., the district court went back on the record with Goetz present. Goetz apologized, explaining the earlier hearing had lasted longer than expected.

The district court nevertheless held Goetz in contempt and orally ordered him to pay a $100 fine "as punishment." In a subsequent written order, the court sanctioned Goetz under Rule 801 of the Uniform Rules for the District Courts, ordered him to pay $100, and directed him to write a letter of apology to opposing counsel.

On appeal, Goetz argued the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of indirect criminal contempt. The State countered...