Peters Grazing Assoc. v. Legerski, 4497
| Decision Date | 03 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 4497,4497 |
| Citation | 546 P.2d 189 |
| Parties | PETERS GRAZING ASSOCIATION, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Thomas LEGERSKI, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Appellant herein having filed a petition for rehearing and the court having examined the same and being advised in the premises, and it appearing to a majority of the court that said petition should be denied,
It is ordered that the petition for rehearing herein filed be and the same is hereby denied.
Justice McCLINTOCK, with whom Chief Justice GUTHRIE joins, would grant the petition for rehearing upon the following grounds:
A majority of the court have joined to deny the petition for rehearing. I presume that this is done on the basis of the rule which I recognize to be well established, that a petition for rehearing is not to be used to reargue matters which have been fully presented to the court upon the original presentation. I agree with that rule, and have followed it in the past even though I dissented from the original viewpoint of the court. However, I feel in this case that the majority opinion does dispose of the appeal on the basis of third-party beneficiary contracts, and I agree with the statement in Chief Justice Guthrie's dissenting opinion, 544 P.2d 449, 459, that this question was not raised by the pleadings or argued in the briefs. The most that I can find in the appellee's brief submitted to this court is a reference to the fact that consideration may move from a third party, but the disposition of the case in the trial court was definitely based upon a "contract" reciting services to the defendant by the plaintiff. The application for rehearing, then, is not an attempt to reiterate old and rejected arguments but a request to be heard on a point which the appellant never had an opportunity to argue.
Under these circumstances I feel that the petition for rehearing should have been allowed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oyler v. State
...549 P.2d 303; Zitterkopf v. Roussalis, Wyo.1976, 546 P.2d 436; Peters Grazing Association v. Legerski, Wyo.1975, 544 P.2d 449, reh. den. 546 P.2d 189; for citations to other cases, see also, Key No. 854(1), Appeal & Error, West's Wyoming Digest. The trial court's ultimate decision carries w......
-
Schutkowski v. Carey
...matter and the apparent purpose in making the contract. Peters Grazing Association v. Legerski, Wyo., 544 P.2d 449 (1975), reh. denied 546 P.2d 189 (1976). Considering all of the language of the agreement in context, it is clear that the parties' intent was to release appellees from liabili......
-
Schoeller v. Board of County Com'rs of Park County
...will be sustained on any legal ground appearing in the record. Peters Grazing Association v. Legerski, Wyo.1976, 544 P.2d 449, reh. den. 546 P.2d 189. The defendant presented no evidence of the unreasonableness of the delay in formulating a comprehensive The legislature piled a lot of dutie......
-
Reed v. Wadsworth
...every finding of fact which is supported by the evidence. Peters Grazing Association v. Legerski, Wyo.1975, 544 P.2d 449, 455, reh. den. 546 P.2d 189. As the facts are outlined and mentioned in this opinion, those general appellate principles must be kept in mind because they will favor the......