Linde v. Bentley, 3913
| Decision Date | 10 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 3913,3913 |
| Citation | 482 P.2d 121 |
| Parties | Arthur E. LINDE, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. The Honorable Vernon G. BENTLEY, Appellee (Defendant below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Arthur E. Linde, pro se.
John A. King, Gordon W. Davis, and George J. Millett, Laramie, for appellee.
Before McINTYRE, C. J., and PARKER, McEWAN, and GRAY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a summary judgent for defendant in an action in which plaintiff claimed $298,000 damages against a district judge for orally instructing the clerk of the district court not to accept papers from defendant for filing until they had been reviewed by the judge.
The controversy arose when Mr. Linde, a non-lawyer, filed certain pleadings and made appearance on behalf of defendants in an action entitled, 'Major Oil Company, a Wyoming corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Arthur E. Linde and Nuclear State Enterprises, Inc., Defendants' (Civil No. 14324), and the court on motion of the opposing party entered a written order, April 23, 1970, stating that Mr. Linde was not a qualified member of the Wyoming State Bar and not entitled to appear and represent any party other than himself individually, and ordering that all pleadings and motions filed by him be stricken from the record as they related to or purported to be on behalf of Nuclear State Enterprises, Inc. Affidavits show that the judge orally advised Mr. Linde during the hearing that he was not entitled to appear and represent any party other than himself individually and could not represent the corporation, and that on April 23 the judge orally instructed the clerk of court not to accept for filing pleadings or motions sought to be filed by Mr. Linde until they had been reviewed by the judge. On April 28 Mr. Linde attempted to file another action in the court entitled, 'Nuclear State Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiff, vs. Major Oil Co., Lloyd H. Sowers, John E. Stanfield, John Doe etal (sic) Defendant (sic),' but the complaint was not filed by the clerk because of his instructions from the court. On May 12 Mr. Linde endeavored to file various motions in Case 14324 which were not then filed, the clerk being unable to immediately have the judge review them due to his absence from the county. The motions were, however, filed May 14 under the date of May 12.
In the present case the motion to dismiss and the objection thereto, both supported by affidavits, were heard before another judge. Summary judgment was entered under the provisions of Rules 12(b) and 56, W.R.C.P., for defendant; this appeal is taken therefrom.
In his brief plaintiff flagrantly violates both the letter and the spirit of Supreme Court Rule 12 by failing to cite any available precedent or the pages of authorities relied on and contents himself with mere reference to the 'Constitution of the United States,' 'Constitution of the State of Wyoming,' and 'Wyoming Business Corporation Act.' His argument is neither cogent nor subject to any reasonable analysis as to validity, and we are not required to notice such unsupported claims of error. Nichols v. Pangarova, Wyo., 443 P.2d 756, 763. However, in this instance we make exception since plaintiff appears pro se and has not previously been before this court so as to be aware of the seriousness of his nonconformance.
As near as we can gather from plaintiff's brief and oral argument, taken together with the response, his contentions turn on three points:
1. Can a non-lawyer who is a major stockholder in a corporation and has authority from its officers appear in court by pleadings or otherwise on behalf of the corporation?
2. If question number one is resolved in the affirmative, resulting in the April 23 order of the court being erroneous, was its action nevertheless within the well established rule of judicial immunity?
3. If notwithstanding the propriety of the court's order the judge's oral instruction to the cherk of court not to accept unapproved pleadings was erroneous, does the rule as to immunity apply?
Concerning the first and second points, the law is well established that although a party to an action may appear in his own proper person without the representation of an attorney he is not entitled to appear for or on behalf of a corporation regardless of his interest in it or any authorization which he may have from the corporation. Some exceptions have been made to this rule as to appearances in justice of peace or minor courts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oyler v. State
...We were confronted with the issue of a state judicial official who was alleged to have acted in excess of his authority in Linde v. Bentley, Wyo., 482 P.2d 121 (1971). In that case, when a non-lawyer purported to represent himself and others before the courts of this state, a district judge......
-
Peterson v. Knutson
...See, also, Bellamy v. Gates, 214 Va. 314, 200 S.E.2d 533 (1973); Hill v. Bartlett, 126 Ga.App. 833, 192 S.E.2d 427 (1972); Linde v. Bentley, 482 P.2d 121 (Wyo.1971); Dear v. Locke, 128 Ill.App.2d 356, 262 N.E.2d 27 (1970); Headley v. Ball, 284 Ala. 488, 226 So.2d 90 (1969); Reynolds v. Hart......
-
Oahu Plumbing and Sheet Metal, Ltd. v. Kona Const., Inc., 6823
...Austrian, Lance & Stewart, P. C. v. Hastings Properties, Inc., 87 Misc.2d 25, 26, 385 N.Y.S.2d 466, 467 (Sup.Ct.1976); Linde v. Bentley, 482 P.2d 121, 122-23 (Wyo.1971); Union Savings Association v. Home Owners Aid, Inc., 23 Ohio St.2d 60, 61, 262 N.E.2d 558, 560 (1970); Ramada Inns, Inc. v......
-
Best v. Best
...Judgments § 148 (2011).[¶ 17] Wyoming Statute § 5–9–108 provides that the circuit courts are courts of record. See Linde v. Bentley, 482 P.2d 121, 122 (Wyo.1971) (distinguishing between justice of the peace, minor courts and administrative agencies, and “courts of record”). [¶ 18] The key q......