Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bogdanski v. Budzik

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 2018No. S-17-0049; S-17-0050Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

HILL, Justice,

concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which KAUTZ, J., joins.

[¶39] I concur with the majority opinion’s adoption of the McHajfie Rule and the opinion’s disposition of Mr. Bogdanski’s negligent training claim against FedEx. I disagree, however, that triable issues of fact preclude summary judgment on Mr. Bogdanski’s vicarious liability claim against FedEx, and I therefore respectfully dissent from the reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

[¶40] My disagreement with the majority opinion stems from my view of how a movant must meet its initial summary…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Thom v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
  3. Savant Homes, Inc. v. CollinsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2016
  4. DeWald v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Downen v. Sinclair Oil Corp.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1994

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API