Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Wales v. Roll

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 1989No. 88-166Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partUrbigkit, Justice

WAIVER OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH RULES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I would take a different path in analysis to overlook movants’ error which permitted trial court consideration of depositions when it ruled on the motions for summary judgment. With their motion for summary *903judgment filed on March 4, 1988, appellees (Franke-Roll) cited reliance on their brief and “depositions of Ron Wales, Vicki Franke and Ross M. Roll.” On the same date, they filed a Motion to Allow Filing of Discovery Depositions without attaching the depositions.1 Also on that same day, appellant, Ron Wales (Wales), filed his motion…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Strang v. BradnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  2. Cook v. Brundidge, Fountain, Elliott & ChurchillTexas Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Torrey v. TwifordWyoming Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Kimbley v. City of Green RiverWyoming Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Matter of Estate of ObraWyoming Supreme Court · 1988

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