Court Summaries
| Publication year | 2016 |
| Pages | 42 |
P. Craig Silva, Williams, Porter, Day & Neville P.C.
Clyde V. Snell, Trustee of the Imogene Snell Revocable Trust dated November 16, 1993 v. William R. Snell 2016 WY 49 May 16, 2016 S-15-0276
Imogene and Clyde Snell had two sons, William Snell and Allen Snell. Together, Imogene and Clyde established a trust to take care of either one of them or both of them as they got older. Imogene died in 2003. Clyde, in 2013, suggested that the trust be terminated and the assets divided between the two sons (William and Allen). William, upon receiving the trust termination documents, found that one asset had recently been reduced by $200,000.00. As a result, William sought an accounting to determine why the amount was reduced. The trial court on summary judgment ordered the accounting and ultimately entered a W.R.C.P Rule 54(a) order resolving all issues. The primary question on appeal was whether the Wyoming Supreme Court had jurisdiction because the summary judgment decision was not a final appealable order. William argued the summary judgment decision was not a final appealable order because it did not finally decide the case, and instead it only required production of the documents which alleged evidence where the money had gone. The Wyoming Supreme Court agreed. The Court, however, still heard the appeal because under W.R.A.P. 13.02 the Court can hear interlocutory appeals on interlocutory orders that involve a controlling question of law for which there is a substantial basis for difference of opinion.
Jeff Lokey v. Mike Irwin 2016 WY 50 May 17, 2016 S-15-0233
The district court entered a default judgment against Jeff Lokey and provided ten days for the parties to object to entry of the judgment. Mr. Lokey objected and appealed the decision denying his objection. Mr. Lokey's appeal was then dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that the appeal was not from a final appealable order. Mr. Lokey, in filing his notice of appeal, designated the appealable order as the order denying his objections to the default judgment. The Wyoming Supreme Court held that the appealable order in this case was the default judgment. As such, Mr. Lokey's notice of appeal does not properly identify the proper appealable order and must be dismissed.
Justice Burke dissented. His position was that the merits of the controversy were not finally determined until the district court entered the order denying Mr. Lokey's objections, which made it a final appealable order.
In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of: Mary Leib v. State of Wyoming, ex rel.. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division 2016 WY 53 May 20, 2016 S-15-0235
This case presents an interesting interplay between two separate workers' compensation rules of law. On the one hand, a worker can prove his or her claim is work-related by showing he or she had good health prior to the work-related circumstances and immediately following that circumstance, the impaired condition began. In other words, evidence of timing of symptoms is a competent way to studying or establishing causation. Medical evidence or testimony is not always essential when a single incident injury is so immediate and directly or probably the result of the accident. On the other hand, in the case of competing experts it is within the discretion of the Medical Commission as the finder of fact to weigh the evidence and determine credibility.
In this case, Ms. Leib was employed as a maintenance worker for Laramie County Community College. As part of her job duties, Ms. Leib performed gardening work which required her to work with a mixture of untreated manure from livestock kept on campus and from a traveling circus...
To continue reading
Request your trial