Wilson v. Tyrrell
2011 WL 149820
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Historical dispute over Lucerne's use of the eastern river channel to transport irrigation water to its headgate across Wilson land; 1893 Lucerne water right with diversion on North Platte River; 1913 upstream diversion dam lacking measurement structure; 1990 consent decree recognizing Lucerne easement/right-of-way; 2007 remand from Wilson II re quiet title and easement location; 2009 district court order locating easement and subsequent costs awards and appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does State Engineer’s §41-3-613 interpretation comply with law? | Wilson argues headgate required at the diversion point. | Lucerne/State Engineer say statute permits but does not require headgate at dam, and historic use justifies current approach. | Not contrary to law; headgate at adjudicated point suffices under the statute. |
| Is Lucerne not required to install a headgate at its diversion dam arbitrary and capricious? | Headgate at the dam is necessary to control flows; excess downstream flow harms Wilsons. | Agency reasonably applied law based on historic use and existing headgate at permitted point. | No; decision not arbitrary or capricious given record and binding court rulings. |
| Did district court follow this Court’s remand mandate? | District court failed to correctly implement remand by identifying easement scope. | District court substantially complied and identified the easement area. | Substantially complied; remanded again to enter a proper order quieting title with Lucerne’s easement identified. |
| Are the district court’s factual findings clearly erroneous? | Key findings mischaracterize the eastern channel’s nature and Lucerne’s historic use. | Findings supported by evidence; deference due to bench trial credibility. | Some findings deemed clearly erroneous; the court’s overall handling consistent with law of the case. |
| Was Lucerne's certificate of costs timely filed and was the costs award proper? | Costs timing and certain items (e.g., deposition) should be denied or reconsidered. | Costs timely filed; some deposition costs may be awarded. | Certificate timely; deposition costs reversed; remaining costs affirmed as reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson I, 77 P.3d 412 (Wy. 2003) (initial treatment of eastern channel and rights; reliction context)
- Wilson II, 150 P.3d 653 (Wy. 2007) (remand on quiet title and easement, eastern channel not a river channel; reliction)
- Northfork Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Park County, 228 P.3d 838 (Wyo. 2010) (administrative review standard; no deference to agency in legal review)
- Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 188 P.3d 554 (Wy. 2008) (arbitrary or capricious review; rational basis standard)
- Ultra Res., Inc. v. Hartman, 226 P.3d 889 (Wy. 2010) (bench-trial findings reviewed for clear error; deference to trial court)
- Newman v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Const. Div., 49 P.3d 163 (Wy. 2002) (substantial evidence standard not always applicable; context matters)
- Garrison v. CC Builders, Inc., 179 P.3d 867 (Wy. 2008) (expert costs and evidentiary rules; district court abuse of discretion standard)
- Platt v. Creighton, 150 P.3d 1194 (Wy. 2007) (mandatory court-rule timing; final judgment costs timing)