Crossan v. Irrigation Development Corp.

Wyoming Supreme Court

Crossan v. Irrigation Development Corp.

598 P.2d 812, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 466

CourtWyoming Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1979

Docket5170

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 598 P.2d 812 (Crossan v. Irrigation Development Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crossan v. Irrigation Development Corp., 598 P.2d 812, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 466 (Wyo. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

*813 ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

An examination of the record on file in the above entitled appeal discloses and the court finds and concludes:

1. Appellant, defendant and third-party plaintiff in the district court filed notice of appeal from two summary judgments.

2. The first summary judgment, entered on May 16, 1979, held against appellant on his counterclaim and found there no reason for delay and directed entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), W.R.C.P.

3. The second summary judgment was entered on May 21, 1979, and dismissed appellant’s third-party complaint with prejudice, which judgment was entered without a Rule 54(b) certification.

4. Appellant’s notice of appeal from both judgments was filed on June 12, 1979, the 27th day after the first summary judgment and the 22nd day after the second. Concurrently, appellant moved the district court for an order to allow the appeal on the ground of excusable neglect because of ignorance of the requirement of Rule 2.01 WRAP, which requires that a notice of appeal be filed within 15 days from entry of judgment.

5. This court has established precedent by unpublished orders and held that ignorance of the provisions of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure is not excusable neglect as a matter of law. Hadley v. Plumber, No. 5161; Lewis v. Roper (Wyo.), 579 P.2d 434. Excusable neglect is measured on a strict standard to take care of genuine emergency conditions, such as death, sickness, undue delay in the mails, Bosler v. Morad, Wyo.1975, 555 P.2d 567, and other situations where such behavior might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.

6. In that the partial summary judgment entered on May 21, 1979, is not appealable inasmuch as it failed to contain the certification required by Rule 54(b), W.R.C.P., an appeal may yet lie therefrom.

Upon the court’s own motion, it is

ORDERED that the captioned appeal be and is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*813 ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

An examination of the record on file in the above entitled appeal discloses and the court finds and concludes:

1. Appellant, defendant and third-party plaintiff in the district court filed notice of appeal from two summary judgments.

2. The first summary judgment, entered on May 16, 1979, held against appellant on his counterclaim and found there no reason for delay and directed entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), W.R.C.P.

3. The second summary judgment was entered on May 21, 1979, and dismissed appellant’s third-party complaint with prejudice, which judgment was entered without a Rule 54(b) certification.

4. Appellant’s notice of appeal from both judgments was filed on June 12, 1979, the 27th day after the first summary judgment and the 22nd day after the second. Concurrently, appellant moved the district court for an order to allow the appeal on the ground of excusable neglect because of ignorance of the requirement of Rule 2.01 WRAP, which requires that a notice of appeal be filed within 15 days from entry of judgment.

5. This court has established precedent by unpublished orders and held that ignorance of the provisions of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure is not excusable neglect as a matter of law. Hadley v. Plumber, No. 5161; Lewis v. Roper (Wyo.), 579 P.2d 434. Excusable neglect is measured on a strict standard to take care of genuine emergency conditions, such as death, sickness, undue delay in the mails, Bosler v. Morad, Wyo.1975, 555 P.2d 567, and other situations where such behavior might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.

6. In that the partial summary judgment entered on May 21, 1979, is not appealable inasmuch as it failed to contain the certification required by Rule 54(b), W.R.C.P., an appeal may yet lie therefrom.

Upon the court’s own motion, it is

ORDERED that the captioned appeal be and is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 P.2d 812, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crossan-v-irrigation-development-corp-wyo-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack