State ex rel. Pacific Intermountain Exp., Inc. v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., Sweetwater County
| Decision Date | 18 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 3232,3237,s. 3232 |
| Parties | STATE of Wyoming upon the relation of PACIFIC INTERMOUNTAIN EXPRESS, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF the SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, SWEETWATER COUNTY, Wyoming, and the Honorable G. G. Stanton, the Judge thereof, Defendants. STATE of Wyoming upon the relation of ZANETTI BUS LINES, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF the SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, SWEETWATER COUNTY, Wyoming, and the Honorable Glen G. Stanton, the Judge thereof, Defendants. |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Murane, Bostwick, McDaniel & Scott, Casper, for plaintiff Pacific Intermountain Express, Inc.
Swainson & Swainson, Cheyenne, January, Gilchrist & Blunk, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff Zanetti Bus Lines, Inc.
Galicich & Hamm, Rock Springs, for defendants.
Before PARKER, C. J., and HARNSBERGER, GRAY and McINTYRE, JJ.
As a result of a collision between an automobile, driven by Joseph Weimer; a bus, owned by Zanetti Bus Lines, Inc.; and a truck, owned by Pacific Intermountain Express, Inc.; thirty-three persons alleging injuries filed separate suits in the Sweetwater County Districk Court, listing as defendants the two mentioned corporations and Nellie Horton, Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph Weimer, deceased, who was killed in the accident. The court under the provisions of Rule 42(a), W.R.C.P., on a motion of P.I.E. ordered the consolidation of the thirty-three cases as to the issue of liability, providing that the issue of damages should be heard individually in each case. At the trial, considerable difficulty was encountered in securing a jury, some 275 talesmen being examined. After several weeks of evidence on the liability issue, the jury brought in verdicts, one for P.I.E., one against Zanetti, and one against the Estate of Joseph Weimer. Thereafter, in accordance with previous agreement with counsel, the court proceeded to try successively the issue of damages in each case before the same jury which had tried liability. Some of these trials have been concluded, notably one in which Roy G. Logan was plaintiff, and others are continuing. Meanwhile, P.I.E. prepared a judgment in its favor in each of the thirty-three cases and submitted it to the trial court. Zanetti prepared and submitted a judgment in each of the cases in favor of plaintiff and against the two remaining defendants, Zanetti and Weimer, as to liability without listing damages, and later prepared a judgment in the case wherein Roy G. Logan was plaintiff in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Zanetti and Weimer in the sum of $22,875.00. When the trial court refused to sign or enter any of these judgments, P.I.E. filed a petition for writ of mandamus (Case 3232) and Zanetti a similar one (Case 3237), seeking to require the trial court to sign and enter the judgments as requested. In the petitions various reasons were listed why mandamus should issue, the most persuasive being the need for some effect to be given to the verdicts and the possibility that a subsequent disability of the presiding judge before the entry of final judgments could, under the provisions of Rule 63, W.R.C.P., result in the granting of a new trial by his successor and the consequent nullification of the jury's verdicts. Defendants counter with numerous reasons why mandamus should not issue; the most significant seem to be that the issuance of judgments in such situations is a matter solely within the discretion of the trial judge under Rule 54(b), W.R.C.P., and that the granting of the request of the plaintiffs here would result in piecemeal appeals.
It has long been recognized that notwithstanding the fact that the nature of the judgment may be a matter of judicial discretion, the rendition and entry thereof may be compelled by a writ of mandamus under proper circumstances. 1 Freeman, Judgments, p. 93 (5 ed.); State ex rel. Tibbals v. District Court of Ninth Judicial District in and for Fremont County, 42 Wyo. 214, 292 P. 897, 900, 71 A.L.R. 993.
Rule 42, W.R.C.P., providing for the consolidation of actions and for the ordering of separate trials on any claim or issue, was intended to further the general objectives of the rules and to assist in the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of litigation. Accordingly, any interpretation of that rule cannot ignore the right to appeal, the procedures necessary therefor, or the practical aspects of the final step in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spence v. Sloan
...to much confusion in attempting to comply with the requisite steps in appeal. State ex rel. Pac. Intermountain Express, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. of the Second Jud. Dist., Sweetwater Cnty. , 387 P.2d 550, 552 (Wyo. 1963) ; see also CSC Grp. Holdings, LLC v. Automation & Elecs., Inc. , 2016 WY 26, ¶......
-
Spence v. Sloan
...the requisite steps in appeal.... State ex rel. Pac. Intermountain Express, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. of the Second Jud. Dist., Sweetwater Cnty., 387 P.2d 550, 552 (Wyo. 1963); see also CSC Grp. Holdings, LLC v. Automation &Elecs., Inc., 2016 WY 26, ¶ 27, 368 P.3d 302, 308 (Wyo. 2016) ("[Rule 54] a......
-
Robinson v. First Wyoming Bank, N.A., Jackson Hole
...one for all appellate purposes. Mallin v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1990), 106 Nev. 606, 797 P.2d 978, 980; State v. District Court of Second Judicial District (Wyo.1963), 387 P.2d 550. In concurring with this principle, the Ninth Circuit Court said: In our view, the best approach is to permit......
-
Yarema v. Exxon Corp.
...several decisions by the United States Courts of Appeal and a decision by the Supreme Court of Wyoming, State v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 387 P.2d 550 (Wyo.1963). 14 As reviewed in a recent opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Huene v. United ......