Nix v. Chambers

Wyoming Supreme Court

Nix v. Chambers

524 P.2d 589, 1974 Wyo. LEXIS 219

CourtWyoming Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 18, 1974

Docket4352

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 524 P.2d 589 (Nix v. Chambers) 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

Nix v. Chambers, 524 P.2d 589, 1974 Wyo. LEXIS 219 (Wyo. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It has been alleged in this case that a dog named “Max,” which belonged to Gladys Chambers, was shot and killed with a 22-caliber bullet; also, that medical expense on the dog amounted to $35. The owner, accusing Vernon Nix, defendant, of killing the dog, brought suit for damages.

No transcript of the evidence has been submitted and there has been no compliance with Rule 75(c), W.R.C.P. Thus, there is nothing before us upon which a decision can be based. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

The appellee requests that we invoke the provisions of Rule 72(k), W.R.C. P., and assess costs and penalties against the appellant. We are unable to certify that there was reasonable cause for the appeal. Accordingly, it appears to be mandatory that there shall be taxed as part of the costs in this case, a reasonable attorney’s fee of not less than $25 nor more than $300. In compliance with this provision, we fix the attorney’s fee to ■ be paid by appellant to appellee in the amount of $100, which shall be added as a part of the costs and penalties to be paid by appellant.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

It has been alleged in this case that a dog named “Max,” which belonged to Gladys Chambers, was shot and killed with a 22-caliber bullet; also, that medical expense on the dog amounted to $35. The owner, accusing Vernon Nix, defendant, of killing the dog, brought suit for damages.

No transcript of the evidence has been submitted and there has been no compliance with Rule 75(c), W.R.C.P. Thus, there is nothing before us upon which a decision can be based. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

The appellee requests that we invoke the provisions of Rule 72(k), W.R.C. P., and assess costs and penalties against the appellant. We are unable to certify that there was reasonable cause for the appeal. Accordingly, it appears to be mandatory that there shall be taxed as part of the costs in this case, a reasonable attorney’s fee of not less than $25 nor more than $300. In compliance with this provision, we fix the attorney’s fee to ■ be paid by appellant to appellee in the amount of $100, which shall be added as a part of the costs and penalties to be paid by appellant.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 P.2d 589, 1974 Wyo. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nix-v-chambers-wyo-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack