Find Court Cases > 1992 WY 118, 837 P.2d 685, Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of America

1992 WY 118, 837 P.2d 685, Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of America

Case Date: 09/15/1992
Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming
Docket No: 92-68

Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of America
1992 WY 118
837 P.2d 685
Case Number: 92-68
Decided: 09/15/1992
Supreme Court of Wyoming

Cite as: 1992 WY 118, 837 P.2d 685


The DOCTORS' COMPANY, a California corporation,

Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.

The INSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Texas corporation; and Stanley W. Peters, MD,

Appellees (Defendants).

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.

PER CURIAM.

[1]      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 PROCE-

DURE, CIVIL 2873 (1973).

[2]      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.

 

Citationizer Summary of Documents Citing This Document

Cite Name Level
Wyoming Supreme Court Cases
 CiteNameLevel
 1993 WY 151, 864 P.2d 1018, Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of AmericaCited
 1995 WY 67, 895 P.2d 441, Jacobs v. JacobsCited
 2008 WY 34, 179 P.3d 867, WAYNE GARRISON and PAMELA GARRISON V. CC BUILDERS, INC., a Wyoming corporation and CLINT COOK, Individually; CC BUILDERS, INC., a Wyoming corporation V. WAYNE GARRISON and PAMELA GARRISONCited
Citationizer: Table of Authority
Cite Name Level
None Found.