CATHCART v. MEYER
2004 WY 49
88 P.3d 1050
Case Number: 04-32, 04-33, 04-34
Decided: 05/04/2004
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2004
RICH CATHCART, RODNEY PETE
ANDERSON, SCOTT ZIMMERMAN
and KEITH KENNEDY,
Appellants(Plaintiffs),
v.
JOSEPH B. MEYER, WYOMING SECRETARY
OF STATE, in his official capacity,
Appellee(Defendant),
and
JACK ADSIT and U.S. TERM LIMITS
FOUNDATION,
Appellees(Intervenors/Defendants).
JOSEPH B. MEYER, WYOMING SECRETARY
OF STATE, in his official capacity,
Appellant(Defendant),
v.
RICH CATHCART, RODNEY PETE
ANDERSON, SCOTT ZIMMERMAN and
KEITH KENNEDY,
Appellees(Plaintiffs).
JACK ADSIT and U.S. TERM LIMITS
FOUNDATION,
Appellants(Intervenors/Defendants),
v.
RICH CATHCART, RODNEY PETE
ANDERSON, SCOTT ZIMMERMAN and
KEITH KENNEDY,
Appellees(Plaintiffs).
Representing Rich Cathcart, Rodney Pete Anderson, Scott Zimmerman and Keith Kennedy:
Harriet M. Hageman and Kara Brighton of Hageman & Brighton, Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Timothy M. Stubson of Brown, Drew & Massey, LLP, Casper, Wyoming.
Representing Joseph B. Meyer, Wyoming Secretary of State:
Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Michael R. ODonnell, Chief Deputy Attorney General; and Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Representing Jack Adsit and U.S. Term Limits Foundation::
Sasha Johnston and Daniel E. White of Woodard & White, P.C. Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Bradley T. Cave and Lawrence J. Wolfe of Holland & Hart, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.
VOIGT, Justice.
[1] Two incumbent state legislators and two electors challenge the constitutionality of Wyomings initiative-engendered term limit statute. These cases come to us from the district court via W.R.A.P. 11 certified questions and W.R.C.P. 54(b) certification of an order rejecting affirmative defenses. We affirm the district courts rejection of the affirmative defenses and we find the term limit statute unconstitutional.
1. Is the term limit law for state elected officials (Wyo. Stat. Ann. 22-5-103), whether adopted by initiative or legislative action, constitutional and enforceable, given the qualifications enumerated in Article 6, 2 and 15; Article 3, 2; and Article 4, 2 and 11 of the Wyoming Constitution?
2. Does the term limit law (Wyo. Stat. Ann. 22-5-103) violate the appellants right to vote, given the provisions of Article 6, 2 of the Wyoming Constitution?
3. Do the reserved powers of the people under the Wyoming Constitution include the right to alter the government by initiative or by statute with regard to the time period any one person can hold any particular state office?[1]
4. Is this action barred by the doctrine of laches or by a statute of limitations?
[2] On January 7, 2004, two Laramie County state legislators and two Laramie County residents (collectively the appellants) filed a complaint in district court seeking a declaration that Wyomings term limit law is unconstitutional, and asking the district court to enjoin the secretary of state from enforcing it. On January 23, 2004, the secretary of state answered the complaint by asserting the constitutionality of the statute and by asserting the affirmative defenses of standing, laches, estoppel, waiver, adequate remedy at law (repeal), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (no justiciable controversy/political question), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (statute of limitations in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-3-109 (LexisNexis 2003)), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (statute of limitations in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 22-24-122 (LexisNexis 2003)), and the constitutions reservation to the people of the right to reform, alter or abolish government in any manner as they may think proper.
[3] On February 13, 2004, the district court allowed a Wyoming citizen and a national research and education foundation dedicated to the preservation of term limit legislation to intervene as party defendants. On the same date, the district court also entered the order rejecting affirmative defenses that is the subject of these consolidated appeals. Finally, on February 20, 2004, the district court entered its Revised Order Certifying Questions. On February 23, 2004, this Court entered its Notice of Agreement to Answer Certified Questions, Order Consolidating Related Appeals, Order Establishing Briefing Schedule, and Order of Setting for Oral Argument. The next day, a Supplemental Order on Briefing of Certified Questions ordered briefing on certain additional constitutional provisions. Oral arguments were heard on March 24, 2004.
FACTS2
[4] In the 1992 general election, Wyoming voters approved an initiative that limited the number of terms of office that could be served by certain of its elected federal and state officials.3 The relevant portion of that initiative, as amended by the legislature in 1995, is currently found at Wyo. Stat. Ann. 22-5-103 (LexisNexis 2003):
22-5-103. Legislative service; limits on ballot access; state offices
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of Wyoming law, the secretary of state or other authorized official shall not certify the name of any person as the nominee or candidate for the office sought, nor shall that person be elected nor serve in that office if the following will occur:
(i) The person, by the end of the current term of office will have served, or but for resignation, would have served eight (8) or more years in any sixteen (16) year period in the office for which the candidate is seeking nomination or election, except, that any time served in that particular office prior to January 1, 1993, shall not be counted for purposes of this term limit. This provision shall apply to the offices of governor, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, and state superintendent of public instruction;
(ii) The person, by the end of the current term of office will have served, or but for resignation, would have served twelve (12) or more years in any twenty-four (24) year period as a state representative, except that any time served in the office of state representative prior to January 1, 1993, shall not count for purposes of this term limit;
(iii) The person, by the end of the current term of office will have served, or but for resignation, would have served twelve (12) or more years in any twenty-four (24) year period as a state senator, except that any time served as a state senator prior to January 1, 1993, shall not be counted for purposes of this term limit.
[5] The initiative also contained a specific statement of findings and declarations:
(a) The people of the state of Wyoming hereby find and declare as follows:
(i) State and federal representatives who remain in office for extended periods of time become preoccupied with their own reelection and for that reason devote more effort to campaigning for their office than making legislative decisions for the good of the people of Wyoming;
(ii) State and federal representatives have become too closely aligned with the special interest groups who provide contributions and support for their reelection campaigns, provide special favors and intense lobbying, all of which causes corruption or the appearance of corruption of the legislative system;
(iii) Entrenched incumbency has discouraged qualified citizens from seeking office and lead to a lack of competitiveness and a decline in robust debate of issues important to the people of Wyoming;
(iv) Due to the appearance of corruption and the lack of competitiveness for entrenched incumbency seats, there has been a reduction in voter participation which is counter-productive in a representative democracy;
(v) The people of the state of Wyoming have determined that the declarations and findings contained herein threaten their vital interest in maintaining the integrity of their state and federal office holders and avoiding the appearance of corruption and lack of response to the needs of the people of Wyoming. It is their purpose and intent in enacting this law that term limitations is the best method by which to insure that these vital interests are guarded for the people of the state.
[32] Wyo. Stat. Ann. 22-24-122 is part of Title 22 (Elections), Chapter 24 (Initiative and Referendum). Those statutes are the procedures prescribed by law for implementation of the constitutionally created initiative right. The thirty-day period of limitation contained in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 22-24-122 clearly and unambiguously applies only to determinations made by the secretary of state or by the attorney general under this article . . ..11 It just as clearly and unambiguously does not apply to substantive constitutional challenges to particular laws adopted via initiative. No doubt, the period is so shortthirty daysbecause it is intended only to bar challenges to the election, itself, not to the law thereby adopted. We conclude that the thirty-day period of limitations found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 22-24-122 does not act to bar constitutional challenges seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from a law adopted by the initiative process. This conclusion does not conflict with the plurality opinion in Wyoming Nat. Abortion Rights Action League v. Karpan, 881 P.2d 281, 289-90 (Wyo. 1994), where the facial constitutionality of a proposed initiative was challenged as part of a challenge to the secretary of states decision to place the initiative on the ballot. In that case, the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was brought within the thirty-day period, and no other period of limitation was at issue. See also Snell v. Johnson County School Dist. No. 1, 2004 WY 19, 14-18, 86 P.3d 248, 254-56 (Wyo. 2004) (constitutional claim related to bond election procedures, but not constitutional claim related to use of bond funds, subject to election code statute of limitations).
[37] The parties have not addressed this issue, but we note that the constitutionality of a statute may only be questioned by a party whose rights are affected thereby. Stagner v. Wyoming State Tax Comn, 682 P.2d 326, 331 (Wyo. 1984); Alberts v. State, 642 P.2d 447, 452 (Wyo. 1982). Likewise, a party cannot assert that a statute is unconstitutional as to other persons or classes of persons. Mahaney v. Hunter Enterprises, Inc., 426 P.2d 442, 444 (Wyo. 1967). These precepts suggest that the appellant legislators cannot raise the question of the constitutionality of the term limit law as it affects the qualifications for governor found in Wyo. Const. art. 4, 2, and for secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, and superintendent of public instruction found in Wyo. Const. art. 4, 11. Furthermore, the appellant voters have not alleged an inability to vote for particular candidates for the executive branch offices. Accordingly, we will limit our holding to those constitutional provisions involving legislative qualifications.
FOOTNOTES
1For clarity, the wording of this question differs slightly from its wording in our order accepting certification.
2The facts set forth herein have been gleaned from the Revised Stipulation of Facts filed in the district court on February 13, 2004.
3The question of congressional term limits is not presently before this Court, that matter having been decided against state-imposed term limits in United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995). See Dwayne A. Vance, State-Imposed Congressional Term Limits: What Would the Framers of the Constitution Say?, 1994 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 429 (1994) and Martin E. Latz, The Constitutionality of State-Passed Congressional Term Limits, 25 Akron L. Rev. 155 (1991).
4W.R.C.P. 54(b) states, in pertinent part:
Judgment upon multiple claims or involving multiple parties. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.
5The filing period for these legislative offices is during May 2004.
6W.R.A.P. 11.01 states, in pertinent part:
The supreme court may answer questions of law certified to it by a federal court or a state district court, and a district court may answer questions of law certified to it by a circuit court, municipal court or an administrative agency, if there is involved in any proceeding before the certifying court or agency a question of law which may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court or agency and concerning which it appears there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the supreme court.
7Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-37-103 (LexisNexis 2003) states:
Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by the Wyoming constitution or by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument determined and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations.
8In their appellate briefs, the parties either ignored this justification for the district courts rejection of laches or claimed an inability to find any law on the matter. No doubt, the district court was referring to the concept of continuing injury as it may affect application of the statute of limitations. See Young v. Young, 709 P.2d 1254, 1259 (Wyo. 1985) and Blacks Law Dictionary 789 (7th ed. 1999).
9We say if any because, unlike the situation in Cole, the record in the present case does not reveal any Wyoming state legislators who left office based upon the presumptive validity of this states term limit law. This is the first election since the laws adoption wherein the twelve-year limitation would have an effect.
10In his answer to the complaint, the secretary of state actually raised as an affirmative defense the ten-year period of limitations found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-3-109, and that is the statute mentioned in the certified questions. The intervenors answer, however, referred both to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-3-109 and to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-3-105(a)(iv)(C). As we noted in Cox, 2003 WY 146, 28, 79 P.3d at 509, the latter statute of limitations governs declaratory judgment actions, and that is the statute that both appellees have argued before this Court.
11Article 1 of Chapter 24 contains the initiative and referendum election procedures.
12In pari materia means that all provisions relating to the same matter are read together. Blacks Law Dictionary, supra, at 794.
13Wyo. Const. art. 20 provides specific procedures whereby amendments may be proposed by the legislature and adopted at a general election, or may be adopted at a constitutional convention proposed by the legislature and approved at a general election.
14They may not be alone in that contention. In an appendix to his dissent in Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203, 275, 81 S.Ct. 1469, 6 L.Ed.2d 782 (1961), Justice Douglas included the Wyoming Constitution as one of fifteen making specific provision for the right of revolution . . ..
15Relevant cases were recently collected at George L. Blum, Annotation, Validity, Construction, and Operation of Constitutional and Statutory Term Limits Provisions, 112 A.L.R.5th 1 (2003).
16We have recognized that resort may be had to the record of the debates from Wyomings constitutional convention, but we have also noted that they are not a very reliable source of information when attempting to construe any particular word or provision of the constitution. Merbanco, 2003 WY 73, 40, 70 P.3d at 254; Rasmussen, 50 P. at 824. The parties have noted some general statements from the debates, but nothing directly bearing upon the specific issue of term limits or the exclusiveness of constitutional qualifications to hold office.
17For a negative analysis of Rudeen, see Daniel Roland Anderson, Note, Rudeen v. Cenarrusa: Tying a Bow on a Bad Day for Idaho, 38 Idaho L. Rev. 707 (2002).
18Coyne v. State ex rel. Thomas, 595 P.2d 970, 972 (Wyo. 1979) and Haskins v. State ex rel. Harrington, 516 P.2d 1171, 1173-74 (Wyo. 1973) are not contrary holdings inasmuch as they are concerned with statutory, rather than constitutional offices.
Citationizer Summary of Documents Citing This Document
Cite | Name | Level | |
---|---|---|---|
Wyoming Supreme Court Cases | |||
Cite | Name | Level | |
2004 WY 143, 100 P.3d 1238, | LANKFORD v. CITY OF LARAMIE | Discussed | |
2005 WY 99, 117 P.3d 1244, | JERAL DEE HARSHBERGER V. CHARLES A. HARSHBERGER | Discussed | |
2005 WY 138, 121 P.3d 783, | KIM E. ASKVIG; JULAINE L. ASKVIG; and PAUL R. LEWIS v. WELLS FARGO BANK WYOMING, N.A., as successor in interest to WELLS FARGO BANK NORTHWEST, N.A., f/k/a FIRST SECURITY BANK, N.C. | Discussed | |
2006 WY 14, 126 P.3d 909, | MULLINNIX LLC V. HKB ROYALTY TRUST, c/o H. BROWN; JAW ROYALTY TRUST, WILTSE; OSWALD; RODERICK; BAALMAN; HIGH PLAINS ASSOCIATES, INC.; PARNELL; PENNACO ENERGY, INC.; BARRETT RESOURCES CORPORATION; LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY, INC.; SCHIENKER; FULTON; TONGUE RIVER ROYALTIES; M&M OIL AND GAS PROPERTIES, LLC; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NA; SCHUMAN; MORTON; SMITH; HIGGINS; BENNETT, BANK ONE, f/k/a THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, NA; McDONALD; JOHNSON; FRAZEY; TOWER COLOMBIA CORPORATION; CROUCH; QUANTUM ENERGY; COULTER; FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF COMMERCE; ROTHWELL; and NORTH FINN, LLC ; HICKMAN; BOYCE; and LANE BOYCE V. BERNICE GROVES; JAMES E. DRAKE; and EDRA JUNE DRAKE | Cited | |
2006 WY 31, 130 P.3d 486, | JAMIE STANTON V. THE STATE OF WYOMING | Cited | |
2006 WY 38, 131 P.3d 369, | PAULA HOKE v. MOTEL 6 JACKSON AND ACCOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation | Cited | |
2006 WY 42, 131 P.3d 975, | LEE ANN KILLIAN and DONNA OAKLEY,as co-personal representatives of Jeffrey Christopher Pool, deceased, and the Estate of Jeffrey Christopher Pool, deceased V. CAZA DRILLING, INC., a Colorado corporation; and ORVILLE LONG | Cited | |
2006 WY 57, 133 P.3d 983, | KEVIN L. CANTRELL and LORI L. CANTRELL, natural parents and duly appointed representatives) of SHANE A. CANTRELL, a minor,) V. SWEETWATER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 | Discussed | |
2006 WY 140, 145 P.3d 1260, | RON BIXLER V. ORO MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., and BRAD HYDE, DANIEL R. ERD and ZANE PASMA | Cited | |
2006 WY 142, 145 P.3d 1264, | RICHARD B. OSBORN V. RUSSELL KILTS | Discussed | |
2007 WY 42, 153 P.3d 917, | PHILIP and FREDDIE WILSON V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF TETON, a political Subdivision of the State of Wyoming | Discussed | |
2009 WY 2, 199 P.3d 1052, | JEFFERY LYNN SMITH V. THE STATE OF WYOMING | Cited | |
2009 WY 11, 200 P.3d 774, | STEVEN M. KRENNING and JOYCE C. KRENNING, husband and wife v. HEART MOUNTAIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT and JAMES FLOWERS and THE STATE OF WYOMING | Discussed | |
2009 WY 65, 208 P.3d 1296, | E. MICHAEL LIEBERMAN V. STEVEN A. MOSSBROOK, FORREST R. SPROUT, SANDRA S. MOSSBROOK, MICHAEL JAMES FORD AND THE MICHAEL JAMES FORD TRUST OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1983 AS SUCCESSOR TO THE RIVERTON ORTHOPEDIC CLINIC PENSION PLAN, and RIVERTON ORTHOPEDIC RETIREMENT PLAN; STEVEN A. MOSSBROOK, FORREST R. SPROUT, SANDRA S. MOSSBROOK, MICHAEL JAMES FORD AND THE MICHAEL JAMES FORD TRUST OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1983 AS SUCCESSOR TO THE RIVERTON ORTHOPEDIC CLINIC PENSION PLAN, and RIVERTON ORTHOPEDIC RETIREMENT PLAN V. E. MICHAEL LIEBERMAN | Cited | |
2010 WY 29, 226 P.3d 860, | SCOTT and CONNIE HEIMER v. ANTELOPE VALLEY IMPROVEMENT and SERVICE DISTRICT | Discussed |
Cite | Name | Level | |
---|---|---|---|
1996 10CIR 747, 83 F.3d 1247, | U.S. v. Cusumano | Cited | |
367 U.S. 203, | SCALES v. UNITED STATES | Cited | |
369 U.S. 186, | BAKER v. CARR | Cited | |
514 U.S. 779, | U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. v. THORNTON | Discussed | |
1994 CO 122, 880 P.2d 1205, | Reale v. Board of Real Estate Appraisers | Cited | |
1998 WA 56, 949 P.2d 1366, 134 Wash.2d 188, | Gerberding v. Munro | Cited | |
Wyoming Supreme Court Cases | |||
Cite | Name | Level | |
1893 WY 1, 32 P. 14, 4 Wyo. 56, | State ex rel. Bennett v. Barber | Cited | |
1897 WY 18, 50 P. 819, 7 Wyo. 117, | Rasmussen v. Baker | Cited | |
1918 WY 18, 173 P. 981, 25 Wyo. 511, | Zancanelli v. Central Coal & Coke Co. | Cited | |
1922 WY 29, 208 P. 874, 29 Wyo. 35, | Budge v. Board of Com'rs of Lincoln County | Cited | |
1924 WY 41, 225 P. 1102, 31 Wyo. 333, | State v. Snyder | Cited | |
1948 WY 22, 197 P.2d 864, 65 Wyo. 189, | State ex rel. Johnson v. Crane | Cited | |
1944 WY 19, 154 P.2d 318, 60 Wyo. 417, | Anderson v. Wyoming Development Co. | Discussed | |
1953 WY 19, 257 P.2d 337, 71 Wyo. 303, | State ex rel. Benham v. Cheever | Cited | |
1957 WY 29, 317 P.2d 495, 77 Wyo. 384, | In re West Highway Sanitary and Imp. Dist. | Cited | |
1972 WY 12, 493 P.2d 759, | State ex rel. Schieck v. Hathaway | Cited | |
1967 WY 21, 426 P.2d 442, | Mahaney v. Hunter Enterprises, Inc. | Cited | |
1973 WY 63, 516 P.2d 1171, | Haskins v. State ex rel. Harrington | Cited | |
1974 WY 27, 521 P.2d 574, | Brimmer v. Thomson | Cited | |
1977 WY 72, 568 P.2d 869, | Schoeller v. Board of County Com'rs of Park County | Cited | |
1978 WY 11, 575 P.2d 1100, | Witzenburger v. State ex rel. Wyoming Community DevelopmentAuthority | Cited | |
1978 WY 50, 582 P.2d 67, | Nehring v. Russell | Cited | |
1979 WY 2, 589 P.2d 334, | Duke v. Housen | Cited | |
1979 WY 41, 592 P.2d 697, | First Nat. Bank of Lander v. First Wyoming Sav. and Loan Ass'n, | Cited | |
1979 WY 73, 595 P.2d 76, | White v. Board of Land Com'rs | Cited | |
1979 WY 78, 595 P.2d 970, | Coyne v. State ex rel. Thomas | Cited | |
1979 WY 153, 603 P.2d 1283, | John Meier & Son, Inc. v. Horse Creek Conservation Dist. ofGoshen County. | Cited | |
1980 WY 5, 606 P.2d 310, | Washakie County School Dist. No. One v. Herschler | Cited | |
1982 WY 35, 642 P.2d 447, | Alberts v. State | Cited | |
1982 WY 52, 645 P.2d 82, | Murphy v. Stevens | Cited | |
1982 WY 104, 651 P.2d 778, | Thomson v. Wyoming In-Stream Flow Committee | Discussed | |
1984 WY 51, 682 P.2d 326, | Stagner v. Wyoming State Tax Com'n | Cited | |
1985 WY 192, 709 P.2d 1254, | Young v. Young | Cited | |
1989 WY 60, 770 P.2d 223, | Memorial Hosp. of Laramie County v. Department of Revenue and Taxation of State of Wyo. | Cited | |
1989 WY 23, 768 P.2d 554, | Mills v. Garlow | Cited | |
1989 WY 132, 775 P.2d 1021, | W.A. MONCRIEF, JR., AND CHARLES TAUBMAN v. SOHIO PETROLEUM COMPANY; BHP PETROLEUM COMPANY, INC., Successor in interest to MONSANTO COMPANY; GRACE PETROLEUM CORPORATION, successor in interest to W.R. GRACE & CO.; NORTH CENTRAL OIL CORPORATION; YATES DRILLING COMPANY; MARTIN YATES, III; and INEXCO OIL COMPANY | Cited | |
1992 WY 58, 832 P.2d 552, | Schulthess v. Carollo | Cited | |
1992 WY 124, 839 P.2d 381, | Simms v. Oedekoven | Cited | |
1992 WY 132, 838 P.2d 1182, | Reiman Corp. v. City of Cheyenne | Cited | |
1994 WY 83, 880 P.2d 594, | Miller v. City of Laramie | Cited | |
1994 WY 63, 875 P.2d 729, | Wyoming Coalition v. Wyoming Game & Fish Com'n | Cited | |
1994 WY 84, 881 P.2d 281, | Wyoming Nat. Abortion Rights Action League v. Karpan | Cited | |
1995 WY 208, 908 P.2d 956, | Pfeil v. Amax Coal West, Inc. | Cited | |
1999 WY 43, 978 P.2d 1138, | Southwestern Public Service Co. v. Thunder Basin Coal Co | Cited | |
1997 WY 36, 933 P.2d 495, | Weiss v. Pedersen | Cited | |
1997 WY 42, 934 P.2d 740, | V-1 Oil Co. v. State | Cited | |
1998 WY 12, 953 P.2d 839, | Management Council of Wyoming Legislature v. Geringer | Cited | |
2000 WY 165, 10 P.3d 514, | GERINGER v. BEBOUT | Cited | |
1999 WY 5, 971 P.2d 974, | McCreary v. Weast | Cited | |
2000 WY 27, 997 P.2d 1021, | ROE v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS | Cited | |
2000 WY 91, 2 P.3d 534, | AMOCO PROD. CO. v. EM NOMINEE PSHP. CO. | Cited | |
2001 WY 6, 17 P.3d 13, | RAWLINSON v. CHEYENNE BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES | Cited | |
2001 WY 26, 18 P.3d 1177, | LEPAGE v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | Discussed | |
2001 WY 116, 36 P.3d 586, | REITER v. STATE | Discussed at Length | |
2002 WY 7, 38 P.3d 1073, | JOLLEY v. STATE LOAN AND INVESTMENT BOARD | Discussed at Length | |
2002 WY 18, 39 P.3d 1034, | GARNICK v. TETON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 | Discussed | |
2002 WY 42, 42 P.3d 1006, | UMBACH v. STATE | Discussed | |
2002 WY 64, 45 P.3d 237, | MASINTER v. MARKSTEIN | Discussed | |
2002 WY 135, 53 P.3d 1088, | BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY v. MADSEN | Discussed | |
2002 WY 154, 55 P.3d 1246, | AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF SWEETWATER | Cited | |
2002 WY 173, 58 P.3d 322, | JENSEN v. FREMONT MOTORS CODY, INC. | Discussed at Length | |
2003 WY 7, 61 P.3d 1221, | DORSETT v. MOORE | Discussed | |
2003 WY 15, 61 P.3d 1255, | POLO RANCH COMPANY v. CITY OF CHEYENNE, BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES | Discussed | |
2003 WY 70, 70 P.3d 223, | RIEDEL v. ANDERSON | Discussed | |
2003 WY 73, 70 P.3d 241, | DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF STATE LANDS & INVESTMENTS, BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS v. MERBANCO, INC. | Discussed at Length | |
2003 WY 112, 76 P.3d 308, | O'DONNELL v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF WYOMING | Discussed | |
2003 WY 122, 77 P.3d 389, | MARKSTEIN v. COUNTRYSIDE I, L.L.C. | Discussed | |
2003 WY 141, 78 P.3d 1032, | IN THE INTEREST OF SNK, A MINOR CHILD | Cited | |
2003 WY 146, 79 P.3d 500, | COX v. CITY OF CHEYENNE | Discussed | |
2003 WY 155, 79 P.3d 997, | DH v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES | Discussed | |
2004 WY 19, 86 P.3d 248, | SNELL v. JOHNSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 | Discussed |