Brown v. City of Casper, 248 P.3d 1136

Brown was injured when Officer Walters ran a red light; Walters was on duty and acting within scope.
Brown filed a WGCA notice of claim on April 25, 2008, then amended April 16, 2009; he filed suit April 23, 2009.
Complaint allegedly complied with WGCA §1-39-113; attached exhibit A reportedly, but not in record.
City and Walters moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting lack of jurisdiction due to failure to allege Art. 16, §7 compliance.
District court converted motions to summary judgment and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and time-bar; Bell precedent was central.
Wyoming Supreme Court reversed, holding jurisdiction attaches upon filing a complaint against a governmental entity and that amendment to allege WGCA compliance can relate back; Bell is overruled to the extent inconsistent with this ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the district court err in denying amendment to cure pleading defects?	Brown argues the court should allow amendment to allege WGCA compliance.	City/Walters argue no jurisdiction to amend after dismissal based on Bell.	Amendment should be allowed; Bell overruled to permit cure.
Does the complaint sufficiently invoke jurisdiction despite not alleging WGCA compliance?	Brown contends filing a complaint against a governmental entity invoked jurisdiction.	City/Walters contend lack of jurisdiction due to failure to plead constitution/statute compliance.	Complaint suffices to invoke jurisdiction; amendment can cure the deficiency.
Should judicially created pleading rules requiring alleging notice of claim be abolished?	Brown seeks abolition of Bell-era pleading rules.	City/Walters defend continued pleading requirements.	Bell-era rules are overruled; jurisdiction lies on filing, with cure possible by amendment.
Did the court improperly rely on Bell and related cases to foreclose amendment?	Brown argues Bell misinterpreted jurisdiction and should be overruled.	City/Walters rely on Bell hierarchy.	Bell and its progeny overruled; pre-Bell principles control; district court can allow amendment.

State ex rel. Yohe v. District Court of Eight Judicial Dist., 33 Wyo. 281, 238 P. 545 (Wyo. 1925) (jurisdiction over general class cases; notice not required in pleading to invoke)
Kusel v. State, 29 Wyo. 287, 213 P. 367 (Wyo. 1923) (jurisdiction exists if case belongs to general class; pleading defects do not defeat jurisdiction)
Houtz v. Board of Comm'rs of Uinta County, 11 Wyo. 152, 70 P. 840 (Wyo. 1902) (notice of claim is a condition precedent to suit but jurisdiction attaches with filing)
Utah Construction Co. v. State Highway Comm'n, 45 Wyo. 403, 19 P.2d 951 (Wyo. 1933) (notice of claim is a condition precedent; absence can be raised any time)
Bell v. Schell, 662 P.2d 410 (Wyo. 1983) (notice of claim is not jurisdictional prerequisite but a pleading rule leading to dismissal when not alleged)
Beaulieu v. Florquist, 2001 WY 33, 20 P.3d 521 (Wyo. 2001) (proper notice is condition precedent; pleading requirement discussed post-Bell)
Beaulieu v. Florquist, 2004 WY 31, 86 P.3d 863 (Wyo. 2004) (Beaulieu II; reaffirmed notice requirement but criticized Bell's linkage to jurisdiction)
McCann v. City of Cody, 2009 WY 86, 210 P.3d 1078 (Wyo. 2009) (dismissal for failure to allege constitutionality; pre-Bell principles emphasized)
Gose v. City of Douglas, 2008 WY 126, 193 P.3d 1159 (Wyo. 2008) (dismissal for failure to allege constitutional compliance; pre-Bell principles)