Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Exotex Corp. v. Rinehart

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided April 5, 2000No. 97-234Published

1Concurrence

MACY, Justice,

specially concurring.

I agree that the default judgment entered against Exotex Corp. should be set aside. I do not, however, agree with the rationale the majority utilized to justify its decision and, consequently, specially concur.

W.R.C.P. 55(b)(1) provides that the clerk may enter a default judgment when the plaintiff's claim is for a sum certain or for a sum which can, by computation, be made certain. The majority concludes that the clerk did not have authority to enter a default judgment in this case because Rine-hart's claim was not for a sum certain. I disagree with that…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Vanasse v. RamsayWyoming Supreme Court · 1993
  2. U.S. Aviation, Inc. v. Wyoming Avionics, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Leet v. JoderWyoming Supreme Court · 1956
  4. E & E Mining, Inc. v. Flying "D" Group, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Hill v. HamiltonWyoming Supreme Court · 1962

1 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