Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

William Hirshberg v. David Coon

January 10, 2012

WILLIAM HIRSHBERG, APPELLANT (PROPOSED INTERVENOR),
v.
DAVID COON, GAIL JENSEN, RUSSELL MAGARITY, SUSAN MAGARITY, AND DEBRA DAVIS, APPELLEES (PETITIONERS) . DR. MARK MENOLASCINO, APPELLANT (PROPOSED INTERVENOR),
v.
DAVID COON, GAIL JENSEN, RUSSELL MAGARITY, SUSAN MAGARITY, AND DEBRA DAVIS, APPELLEES (PETITIONERS).



Appeals from the District Court of Teton County The Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Waldrip, District Judge.

Before GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, J.J.; WALDRIP, D.J.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.

[¶1] In 2008, the Teton County Commission ("the Commission") approved a "Parcel Boundary Adjustment Application" regarding certain real property located in Teton County, Wyoming. Appellees, David Coon, Gail Jensen, Russell and Susan Magarity, and Debra Davis ("Appellees"), sought judicial review of the Commission's decision. In late 2008 and early 2009, respectively, Appellants, Dr. Mark Menolascino and William Hirshberg, purchased the subject property. Neither sought to intervene in the judicial review proceedings. Ultimately, in February 2011, the reviewing district court reversed the decision of the Commission. The parties to the original administrative proceedings, and the judicial review thereof, declined to appeal this ruling. Appellants Hirshberg and Menolascino, however, filed a notice of appeal with respect to the district court's decision. They contemporaneously filed a motion to intervene in the district court proceedings for the sole purpose of pursuing the appeal therefrom. The district court denied their motion to intervene, and Appellants Hirshberg and Menolascino appealed from this decision as well. All four appeals have been consolidated before this Court. For the reasons set forth herein, we will affirm Appeal Nos. S-11-0115 and S-11-0116 and dismiss Appeal Nos. S-11-0113 and S-11-0114.

ISSUES

[¶2] Appellants Hirshberg and Menolascino present the following issues for review:

1. Whether the District Court Erred When It Denied Appellant's Motion to Intervene.

2. Whether A Non-Party May Appeal From a Judgment,

i.e., The District Court's Order Reversing and Remanding Decision of the Board of County Commissioners of Teton County, Wyoming.

3. Whether a Non-Party May Intervene, Post-Judgment, for the Purpose of Appeal.

4. Whether the Board of County Commissioners for Teton County's Decision Was Supported By Substantial Evidence and in Accordance with Law.

5. Whether the District Court's Order Reversing and Remanding Decision of the Board of County Commissioners of Teton County, Wyoming Was Not Supported by Substantial Evidence, Was Contrary to Law, or Was Arbitrary and Capricious.

6. Whether The District Court Failed to Apply the Appropriate Standard of Review.

7. Whether the District Court Erred in Applying the Merger Doctrine.

8. Whether the District Court Erred in Holding the Subject Parcels of Real Property Merged into One Parcel of Real Property.

9. Whether an Exception to the Merger Doctrine Applies to the Subject Parcels of Real Property.

Appellees generally rely upon the same issues but have addressed only the first three, given their position that those issues are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.