ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Courts Blogs -> Law Library Letter

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

State Courts

: Law Library Letter

Summary 2010 WY 86

ADVERTISEMENTS
Summary of Decision issued June 25, 2010

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Churchill v. Campbell Cty Memorial Hospital

Citation: 2010 WY 86

Docket Number: S-09-0195

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge.

Representing Churchill: Nicholas H. Carter and Stephanie M. Humphrey of the Nick Carter Law Firm, PC, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Hospital: Billie LM Addleman of Hirst Applegate, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Churchill filed a complaint in 2009 pursuant to the WGCA alleging injury while awakening from a surgery performed at Campbell County Memorial Hospital. The district court granted the Hospital?s motion to dismiss. The district court ruled that the complaint should be dismissed because Churchill did not file a claim with the Medical Review Panel and that the complaint was barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.
The Court?s disposition was controlled by Bealieu II where the Court held that a complaint in a governmental claims action must allege compliance with the signature and certification requirements of the Wyoming Constitution. While the allegations indicated compliance with the statutory notice of claim requirements, the complaint did not allege compliance with the constitutional requirements.

Conclusion: Because Churchill?s complaint did not allege compliance with the constitutional requirements, the district court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

J. Kite, specially concurring, joined by J. Burke: The Justices would have affirmed on the basis that the district court properly concluded the applicable statute of limitations was § 1-3-107 and the complaint was not filed within two years of the alleged act, error, or omission as required by that statute. They disagree with the judicially created requirement that the complaint must allege compliance with Wyoming Constitution.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/28jfxp7 .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Full post as published by Law Library Letter on June 28, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0026 secs (from cache 11/03/26 02:31:34)