Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of America, 92-68
| Decision Date | 15 September 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-68,92-68 |
| Citation | 837 P.2d 685 |
| Parties | The DOCTORS' COMPANY, a California corporation, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. The INSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Texas corporation; and Stanley W. Peters, MD, Appellees (Defendants). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Arthur H. Downey and Laurel E. Adams, Downey Law Firm, P.C., Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Judith A. Studer, Schwartz, Bon, McCrary & Walker, Casper, for appellee, The Ins. Corp. of America.
Before MACY, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT and GOLDEN, JJ.
The appellant seeks a "limited remand" to the district court for the purpose of having the district court consider a motion to be made pursuant to Wyo.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have not definitively stated our position on such a request for remand and so avail ourselves of the opportunity to establish a workable procedure for this case, as well as for future such cases. We establish this procedure:
[D]uring the pendency of an appeal the district court may consider a Rule 60(b) motion and if it indicates that it is inclined to grant it, application then can be made to the appellate court for a remand. * * * The logical consequence is that the district court may deny the motion although it cannot, until there has been a remand, grant it * * *. This allows a new appeal from the denial of the motion and often the appellate court can consider that appeal together with the appeal from the original judgment.
11 CHARLES A. WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CIVIL § 2873 (1973).
Having established this procedure, it is unnecessary for us to grant the motion for a limited remand and the motion is, therefore, denied. If the appellant chooses to pursue a Rule 60(b) motion, it should be filed in the district court, and the district court has jurisdiction to consider it. Further proceedings in this court relating to such a motion, if any, must await the district court's ruling on that motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of America
...permitting district courts to consider W.R.C.P. 60(b) motions during the pendency of an appeal. The Doctors' Co. v. The Insurance Corp. of America, 837 P.2d 685 (Wyo.1992). TDC filed a motion for relief from judgment under that procedure maintaining that due to mistake, inadvertence, or exc......
-
Woodward v. Valvoda
...the original judgment." 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2873 (3d ed.), Westlaw (database updated October 2020); Doctors’ Co. v. Ins. Corp. of Am. , 837 P.2d 685, 686 (Wyo. 1992). ...
-
Garrison v. Cc Builders, Inc.
...appeared to have occurred in the damage award. This Court denied CC Builders' request under the guidance of Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of America, 837 P.2d 685, 686 (Wyo.1992), wherein it is stated that, during the pendency of an appeal, the district court may consider and deny a W.R.C......
-
Mantle v. N. Star Energy & Constr. LLC
...regarding an issue that has been appealed to this Court, the parties must first seek a remand.In Doctors’ Company v. Insurance Corporation of America , 837 P.2d 685, 686 (1992), we established the following procedure:[D]uring the pendency of an appeal the district court may consider a Rule ......