Legal Opinion

Caldwell v. Cummings

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided November 6, 2001No. 00-283PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HILL, Justice.

[T1] The attorney for Appellant, Owl Lumber, Inc. (Owl Lumber), challenges the jurisdiction of the district court to have entertained, and then granted, Appellees, Martha Clark Cummings and Lisa Vice, motion for sanctions under W.R.C.P. 11(c)(1)(A). 2

[¶ 2] We will reverse the order of the district court and remand with directions that the order imposing sanctions be vacated.

ISSUES

[¶ 8] Owl Lumber states this issue:

1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction over Appellees MOTION FOR SANCTIONS where Appellees had failed to comply with W.R.C.P. Rule 11(c)(1)(A)1 [sic ]. m

Appelle…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Vaughn v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Gerald Zuk v. Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute of the Medical College of Pennsylvania, Benjamin G. LipmanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
  3. Bradgate Associates, Inc. v. Fellows, Read & Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
  4. Elliott v. TiltonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
  5. Bowles v. Sunrise Home Center, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Goglio v. Star Valley Ranch Ass'nWyoming Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Busch v. HORTON AUTOMATICS, INC.Wyoming Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Grove v. PfisterWyoming Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Horn v. WelchWyoming Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Dewey v. DeweyWyoming Supreme Court · 2001

10 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