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.

Cor v. Sinclair Services Co.

Supreme Court of Wyoming

September 29, 2017

WILLIAM COR, Appellant (Plaintiff),
v.
SINCLAIR SERVICES COMPANY, SINCLAIR WYOMING REFINING COMPANY, including RAYMOND HANSEN and JAMES LARSCHEID, individually and acting in their capacities, Appellees (Defendants).

         Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County The Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

          Representing Appellant: William Cor, pro se.

          Representing Appellee: Bradley T. Cave, Holland & Hart LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

          Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.

          FOX, JUSTICE.

         [¶1] William Cor filed this pro se appeal from the district court's dismissal of his complaint. Due to deficiencies in the appeal, we summarily affirm.

         ISSUES

         [¶2] Mr. Cor did not provide this Court with a statement of the issues. We supply a preliminary issue:

1. Did Mr. Cor adequately comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure? We discern Mr. Cor's issues to be:
2. Did the district court err in dismissing Mr. Cor's complaint because he did not file a timely response to defendants' motion to dismiss?
3. Did Mr. Cor's complaint state a claim upon which relief could be granted?

         Our determination of the first issue resolves this matter; accordingly, we do not reach the remaining issues.

         FACTS

         [¶3] Mr. Cor, a former project engineer at Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company, filed a complaint against defendants Sinclair Services Company, Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company, Raymond Hansen, and James Larscheid (Sinclair defendants), asserting claims of fraud in the inducement and execution, breach of contract, and malicious destruction of property. Instead of answering, the Sinclair defendants filed a motion to dismiss and requested a hearing. After Mr. Cor failed to timely respond to Sinclair's motion, the district court granted the Sinclair defendants' motion without a hearing. The district court reasoned that "Mr. Cor has not filed a timely response and therefore has not contested the request for dismissal." The district ...


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.