The Texas Company v. Siefried, 2276
| Decision Date | 11 July 1944 |
| Docket Number | 2276 |
| Citation | 60 Wyo. 142,150 P.2d 99 |
| Parties | THE TEXAS COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C. F. SIEFRIED, as State Highway Superintendent, and LOUIS J. O'MARR, as State Attorney General, Defendants and Appellants, and W. A. NORRIS, INC., a Corporation; PETER KIEWIT SONS COMPANY, a Corporation; JAMES CRICK; JIM McKNIGHT; GLEN JONES; TAGGART CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Corporation; GUY H. JAMES; NORTHWESTERN ENGINEERING COMPANY, a Corporation; ZIMMIE H. LOWDERMILK; HOYLE A. LOWDERMILK, and W. ELBERT LOWDERMILK, Defendants and Respondents |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Original Opinion of April 11, 1944, Reported at: 60 Wyo. 142.
Rehearing Denied.
A petition for rehearing has been filed in this cause on behalf of the plaintiff below supported by an extended brief. It is asserted therein that the Court "erred in dismissing the action as to the defendants other than appellants." The original opinion disposing of the case concluded with a direction for the reversal of the judgment rendered in the District Court and "with instructions to dismiss plaintiff's action." An examination of both the record and opinion thereon discloses that the only "action" presented to us for review and considered by the Court was that against the two state officials, C. F Siefried, as State Highway Superintendent, and Louis J. O'Marr, as State Attorney General. The dismissal ordered, as would have been made perfectly clear when the mandate herein issued, intended to and could deal only with plaintiff's action against the state officials aforesaid. Not one word of the opinion is concerned with legal controversies if any there were existing between plaintiff and the other defendants in the case below. There were no arguments either in the briefs of the parties or presented on the oral hearing of the cause which required a consideration of any such controversies. In order, however, that there may not be the least misunderstanding as to what was intended by the direction referred to above in the original opinion, the mandate when issued will, so far as this matter is concerned simply direct the dismissal by the District Court of Laramie County, of the plaintiff's action against the above mentioned officials of the State of Wyoming.
Relative to the other points raised by the petition for a rehearing ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Wyoming State Bd. of Equalization
...probably no one intent ever existed at the time of of enactment. Texas Co. v. Siefried, 60 Wyo. 142, 147 P.2d 837, reh'g denied 60 Wyo. 142, 150 P.2d 99 (1944). Additionally, there are times in which the literal meaning of a text is rejected or superseded because the result is undesirable a......
-
United Pacific Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Excise Tax Div., Dept. of Revenue and Taxation
... ... We will affirm ... Bernal Construction Company (Bernal), a nonresident prime contractor, was awarded a contract to build ... v. Bureau of Revenue, supra, 457 P.2d at 705; Texas Co. v. Siefried, 60 Wyo. 142, 147 P.2d 837, 842, reh. denied, 60 Wyo. 142, ... ...
-
Danculovich v. Brown
... ... Texas Co. v. Siefried, 60 Wyo. 142, 147 P.2d 837, reh. den. 60 Wyo. 174, 150 ... Oeland v. Neuman Transit Company, Wyo., 367 P.2d 967 (1962); Edwards v. Harris, Wyo., 397 P.2d 87 (1964); ... ...
-
Yosemite Park & Curry Co. v. Department of Motor Vehicles
...118 Mont. 205, 164 P.2d 366; Wilson v. Cook, 327 U.S. 474, 66 S.Ct. 663, 90 L.Ed. 793; Texas Co. v. Siefried, 60 Wyo. 142, 147 P.2d 837, 150 P.2d 99. The question, rather, is whether the state has attempted to exercise its Serious questions might be raised as to the power of the state to im......