Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of America

Wyoming Supreme Court

Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of America

837 P.2d 685, 1992 Wyo. LEXIS 131, 1992 WL 222174

CourtWyoming Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1992

Docket92-68

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 837 P.2d 685 (Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of America) 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

Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of America, 837 P.2d 685, 1992 Wyo. LEXIS 131, 1992 WL 222174 (Wyo. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks a “limited remand” to the district court for the purpose of having the district court consider a motion to be made pursuant to Wyo.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have not definitively stated our position on such a request for remand and so avail ourselves of the opportunity to establish a workable procedure for this case, as well as for future such cases. We establish this procedure:

[Djuring the pendency of an appeal the district court may consider a Rule 60(b) motion and if it indicates that it is inclined to grant it, application then can be made to the appellate court for a remand. * * * The logical consequence is that the district court may deny the motion although it cannot, until there has been a remand, grant it * * *. This allows a new appeal from the denial of the motion and often the appellate court can consider that appeal together with the appeal from the original judgment. 11 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 2873 (1973).

Having established this procedure, it is unnecessary for us to grant the motion for a limited remand and the motion is, therefore, denied. If the appellant chooses to pursue a Rule 60(b) motion, it should be filed in the district court, and the district court has jurisdiction to consider it. Further proceedings in this court relating to. such a motion, if any, must await the district court’s ruling on that motion.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks a “limited remand” to the district court for the purpose of having the district court consider a motion to be made pursuant to Wyo.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have not definitively stated our position on such a request for remand and so avail ourselves of the opportunity to establish a workable procedure for this case, as well as for future such cases. We establish this procedure:

[Djuring the pendency of an appeal the district court may consider a Rule 60(b) motion and if it indicates that it is inclined to grant it, application then can be made to the appellate court for a remand. * * * The logical consequence is that the district court may deny the motion although it cannot, until there has been a remand, grant it * * *. This allows a new appeal from the denial of the motion and often the appellate court can consider that appeal together with the appeal from the original judgment. 11 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 2873 (1973).

Having established this procedure, it is unnecessary for us to grant the motion for a limited remand and the motion is, therefore, denied. If the appellant chooses to pursue a Rule 60(b) motion, it should be filed in the district court, and the district court has jurisdiction to consider it. Further proceedings in this court relating to. such a motion, if any, must await the district court’s ruling on that motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

837 P.2d 685, 1992 Wyo. LEXIS 131, 1992 WL 222174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doctors-co-v-insurance-corp-of-america-wyo-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack