Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Wyoming » Supreme Court of Wyoming » 1995 » 1995 WY 13, 889 P.2d 967, Hamburg v. Heilbrun
1995 WY 13, 889 P.2d 967, Hamburg v. Heilbrun
State: Wyoming
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 94-115
Case Date: 02/14/1995

Hamburg v. Heilbrun
1995 WY 13
889 P.2d 967
Case Number: 94-115
Decided: 02/14/1995
Supreme Court of Wyoming


Cite as: 1995 WY 13, 889 P.2d 967


Michael Lee HAMBURG and Raymond Carl Hamburg, Appellants (Plaintiffs),

v.

Denise HEILBRUN and The Torrington Telegram, Appellees (Defendants).

 

Appeal from District Court of Goshen County, Keith G. Kautz, J.

Michael Lee Hamburg and Raymond Carl Hamburg, pro se.

No appearance.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

LEHMAN, Justice.

[1]      Appellants Michael Lee Hamburg and Raymond Carl Hamburg appeal the district court's order dismissing their complaint against the Torrington Telegram newspaper and Denise Heilbrun.

[2]      We affirm.

Appellants present five issues for review:

1. Did the plaintiffs have a complaint for which relief could be granted[?]

2. Did jurisdiction under Titlt [sic] VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991 apply in this case[?]

3. Is the Torrington Telegram liable for the sexual harassment caused by Denise Heilbrun[?]

4. Did the District Court deny plaintiffs due process in ignoring the Plaintiffs['] request to interrogate in open Court persons who signed affidavits[?]

5. Did the District Court abuse plaintiffs['] right to due process by allowing attorneys Michael Warren and Eric Alden to play game of divide and confuse the case and deny the two pro se plaintiffs the right to legal aid by dismissing Al Hamburg as a plaintiff[?]

Appellees have declined to respond. We, however, have identified another issue:

What action should the reviewing court take for appellants' failure to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure?

DISCUSSION

[3]      The brief of appellants is technically and substantively deficient. Appellants fail to include a table of contents, a statement of facts, a conclusion, adequate references to the record and an appendix containing a copy of the judgment from which appeal is taken, all in violation of W.R.A.P. 7.01. Furthermore, the brief is in violation of W.R.A.P. 7.05 since it is single spaced, not double, as required.

[4]      Appellant's brief is substantively deficient because it lacks cogent argument and is filled with unsupported conclusory statements. Appellants do not cite to the record to support their factual contentions or to the law to support their "legal" arguments.

[W]e need not consider issues which are not supported by proper citation of authority and cogent argument or which are not clearly defined.

Young v. Hawks, 624 P.2d 235, 238 n. 2 (Wyo. 1981) (citations omitted); see also Elder v. Jones, 608 P.2d 654, 660 (Wyo. 1980). There simply is no substance to the contentions of appellants.

[5]      We have often stated that we expect pro se litigants to "handle this professional, technical work in compliance with Wyoming rules of appellate procedure in the same way that trained lawyers are expected to perform." Korkow v. Markle, 746 P.2d 434, 435 (Wyo. 1987). Such blatant disregard of our rules of procedure cannot and will not be condoned. When a brief fails to present a valid contention supported by cogent argument or pertinent authority, "we consistently have refused to consider such cases, whether the brief is by a litigant pro se or is filed by counsel." E.C. Cates Agency, Inc. v. Barbe, 764 P.2d 274, 276 (Wyo. 1988); see also In Interest of FT, 856 P.2d 1128, 1129-30 (Wyo. 1993).

[6]      This court has spoken to a certain leniency which should be afforded the pro se litigant. Osborn v. Emporium Videos, 848 P.2d 237 (Wyo. 1993). A review of the record, however, reflects that not only were appellants afforded leniency in the district court, but the decision letter of the district court dealt with all claims of the appellants thoroughly and thoughtfully. Sufficient evidence appears in the record to support the court's action. Accordingly, pursuant to W.R.A.P. 1.03, the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.

The failure to comply with any other rule of appellate procedure * * * does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for such action as the appellate court deems appropriate, including but not limited to: citation of counsel or a party for contempt; refusal to consider the offending party's contentions; assessment of costs; dismissal; or affirmance.

W.R.A.P. 1.03.

CONCLUSION

[7]      Appellants have failed completely to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. No "coherent, intelligible argument with citations to the legal authorities and parts of the record relied on" has been presented. In Interest of FT, 856 P.2d at 1130. The decision of the district court, therefore, is affirmed.

 

Citationizer Summary of Documents Citing This Document


Cite Name Level
Wyoming Supreme Court Cases
 CiteNameLevel
 1995 WY 31, 891 P.2d 85, Hamburg v. HeilbrunCited
 1995 WY 169, 903 P.2d 545, Jones v. JonesCited
 1998 WY 146, 968 P.2d 932, Osborn v. Estate of ManningCited
 1997 WY 86, 941 P.2d 46, In re Paternity of ICCited
 2000 WY 141, 7 P.3d 887, STONE v. STONECited
 1999 WY 169, 993 P.2d 942, Ahearn v. AhearnCited
 2000 WY 8, 994 P.2d 968, BASOLO v. GOSECited
 2000 WY 104, 4 P.3d 915, JENNINGS v. STATECited
 2002 WY 108, 50 P.3d 693, WALTON v. STATECited
 2003 WY 6, 63 P.3d 209, IN THE MATTER OF TWENTY-TWO FIREARMS, AND ASSORTED AMMUNITION COMPONENTS: DOBSONCited
 2010 WY 132, 239 P.3d 648, BASILE S. DASKALAKIS V. WILLIAM B RESOR, BARBARA HAUGE, LANCE JOHNSON, ROBERT WRIGHTMAN, JOHN RESOR, SNAKE RIVER RANCH LLC, SNAKE RIVER ASSOCIATES, L.P., AND CRYSTAL SPRINGS RANCH, INC.,Cited
 2012 WY 42, DAREN S. BERG and JENNIFER A. BERGCited
Citationizer: Table of Authority
Cite Name Level
Wyoming Supreme Court Cases
 CiteNameLevel
 1980 WY 25, 608 P.2d 654, Elder v. JonesCited
 1981 WY 24, 624 P.2d 235, Young v. HawksCited
 1987 WY 166, 746 P.2d 434, Korkow v. MarkleCited
 1988 WY 142, 764 P.2d 274, E.C. Cates Agency, Inc. v. BarbeCited
 1993 WY 33, 848 P.2d 237, Osborn v. Emporium VideosCited
 1993 WY 104, 856 P.2d 1128, In Interest of FTCited

Wyoming Law

Wyoming State Laws
    > Wyoming Gun Laws
Wyoming Tax
Wyoming Labor Laws
    > Wyoming at Work
    > Wyoming Jobs
Wyoming Agencies

Comments

Tips