*1 mеasure, producer some small but none that least of buyer pays. The fact the disputed truly is quarter authorities relevant money the the those receive after will long construction the gas produced and to the of stat- the is in which say, pipеline issue it to the actually in the utes at here. Suffice gas the after themselves, read in Wyoming statutes con- not to ascertainment are facts material lengthy array Wyoming of junction of FCMV cash market of the value] [fair dealing with construction оf taxa- times. This is cases the gas as of those so the statutes, need convince us that we not plain language of the stat tion the because the they beyond our reso- require a measurement look own borders utes is that in the gas produc- рresent is lution of the issues instant as of the time the of value producer ed, regard to the case. when without proceeds the from its
might receive sale. conclusion, by In tested our well-estab- Moreover, of it is evident that the value the govеrning rules the construction of lished price just is the of gas purchasers to not Depart- statutes correlative taxation and Purchasers, at least in gas itself. the the hold regulations, ment rules and here, clearly that are at issue are instancеs gov- to the Department may, pursuant the price not maximum willing pay only above, include erning statutes discussed ad NGPA, price by the also a permitted but compo- tax as a reimbursements valorem of by the both the enhanced reimbursement process in the for deter- nent assessment and ad taxes assessed severance valorem mining the fair cash market value of miner- Wyoming. the State als, including gas. natural also that the exist Enron contends Affirmed. divergent concerning contentions
ence meaning of statute is evidence ar
ambiguity. Enron Moncrief have “interpretations”
gued somewhat different constructions)
(as opposed to statute. Cooperative Electrical v. Basin Power
See Control, P.2d Board State simply fails argument That DYE, friend, by her next Twilli Suzanne divergent interpretations artic because (Plaintiff), DYE, Appellant J. arguments just that, in their are ulated “interрretations,” divergent, divergent of the stat credible “constructions” but FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL addition, could In Enron claims it be utes. 24, Appellee DISTRICT NO. nonsense,” an subjected to “circular ever (Defendant). tax, and on taxes. spiraling taxes This No. 90-135. conception argument is based on a Wyoming. Supreme valo- pays it severance tax on the ad Court once then it will reimbursed be rem taxes Nov. reim pay severance tax on that required etc., bursement, etc., etc., infinity. into support are no facts in the recоrd
There argument.
this parties
Much ado made all about cited
the relevance authorities reviewed briefs. We have
various of Petroleum Accountants Societies
Council North America Bulletins contained in record, citations, case as well as the
including those from The Interior Board of All Appeals. are instructive
Land *2 Fasse,
William L. Miller of Miller and Riverton, appellant. for Jay Dee of Schaefer & Associ- Sсhaefer ates, Laramie, appellee. URBIGKIT, C.J., THOMAS, Before and GOLDEN, CARDINE, MACY and JJ. CARDINE, Justice. Dye appeals
Suzanne W.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) (6) personal and dismissal of her County suit Fremont School resulted from District No. Dismissal her mother’s failure to file a notice required claim the sсhool district as Wyoming under the Governmental Claims Act.
We reverse and remand.
Dye frames the issues as: purchased If school district has “1. insurance, liability has the district sovereign immunity any claims of waived 21-3-129, W.S.1977, as pursuant to § amended, liability to the extent of its procedure does the insurаnce and claims of limitations of the Govern- and statute apply? Act mental Claims requirement and stat- “2. Is the notice limitations of the Gov- ute of applied to mi- ernmental Claims Act as as of due nors unconstitutional violation process equаl protection of the law?” dismissal, purposes For of review of this alleged complaint in the accept the facts Richardson, true. Gates Appellant states The filed a motion injured she her knees school district to dis- complaint running pursuant 12(b)(1) race member a two-mile as a miss to W.R.C.P. while High 12(b)(6) School track team on answering Dye’s of the Shoshoni in lieu of amended April 24, High 1986. Shoshoni School argued complaint. district *3 part County School District No. of Fremont Claims Act con- Governmental injury, Dye 24. the was aware Before remedy Dye’s for tained the exclusive knees, mother problems her and her The district cause action. contended track expressed concern to school’s Dye’s to file a notice of claim failurе participating in track. Dye coach about a two-year with the district within school Dye’s expressly told the coach that mother injury pursuant period of her from the date Dye run in the race. should not two-mile (June Repl.) 1988 to W.S. 1-39-113 barred wishes, Contrary tо the mother’s the coach this cause of action. race, injured. Dye ran in that and she was agreed The court with the school trial injury, Dye As a result of the underwent Dye’s district. It found that failure to medi- surgery on knees and sustained both in her claim resulted the сourt file $26,000. expenses cal of at least lacking jurisdiction. The suit dis- 25, 1989, Dye’s filed January On mother subject jurisdic- missed lack of matter for a notice of claim with the school district. 7,May tion on 1990. The denied the on Jan- school district claim 31, April uary This suit on 1989. followеd Both the Governmental Claims 24, Dye complaint filed an amended bringing Act and 21-3-129 deal with W.S. 1989, reciting August in the time of against suit district. re a school Statutes Dye’s poli- injury, the school district had a lating subject should the same be read Dye cy liability brought insurance. pari lеgislative in to ascertain materia 21-3-129, pursuant suit to W.S. Hospi intent. Memorial Paravecchio v. part: in states tal, 1276, (Wyo.1987), 1278 cert. “(a) The board of trustees of each school 915, 1088, denied 108 S.Ct. 99 485 U.S. may procure the state a district within (1988). Wyoming L.Ed.2d 249 Govern comprehensive policy policies of liabili- or remedy mental Claims Act is the exclusive ty insurance which would save the school against or other govern a school district harmless from financial loss aris- district 1-39-116; mental Dee entity. W.S. v. Lar claim, demand, suit, ing any оr out (Wyo. P.2d County, amie 958 personal judgment injury for or death 1983). Thus, while W.S. 21-3-129 allows alleged any occasioned tort of against an action a school district to the officer, employee, agent or of the school insurance, liability extent of an its such policy policies spec- district. The or shall brought pursuant action must be to the ify fifty a maximum amount thousand procedures outlined in the Governmental ($50,000.00)or for payable dollars more procedures require Claims These fil Act. (1) persоn any one a maxi- ing proper of a notice of claim within the amount of five hundred thousand mum period. limitation ($500,000.00) payable dollars or more Having filing of claim issue resolved (1) regardless any one accident of the favor, in the school distriсt’s we now turn injured. persons number to the of the application Governmental “(b) governmental immu- The defense Wyo- Claims Act as it relates to a minor. nity expressly waived the extent of ming stated: Statute 1-39-113 coverage any insurance of the district “(a) brought No shall be under action alleged involving any such tort. All de- governmental entity against this act to a fenses which would available upon unless which the action is in the claim private corporation an action presented entity to the аn based is corporation for the torts of its offi- such writing cers, agents statement within two employees, or shall be avail- itemized (2) act, years alleged date of the any district in action of the able to a school omission, except that a arising under error or cause of against it this section.” point guardian or not more than ad litem for an infant may be instituted action incompetent person repre- al- (2) discovery after otherwise years two omission, act, if the claim- or shall make leged error or sented an action such act, alleged proper establish that other order as it deems for the ant can * * protection error or omission was: of the infant Id. “(i) reasonably discoverable within a Not onе, being A “next friend” is who without (2) period; or year two regularly appointed guardian, acts for a “(ii) The claimant failed to discover person legal disability. under a In re act, within the alleged 1989). error or omission (S.D.Texas Moody, 105 B.R. (2) year period despite the exercise two appointed “guardian A ad litem” is *4 diligence.” of due a court to act the interest of minor or person disability. under a Bu other Von as it recently discussed this statute We Bulow, Auersperg v. von 634 by low Dept. minors in Alewine v. relates tо State 1284, (S.D.N.Y.1986). A F.Supp. 1293 next Services, Div. Health and Social of of may a minor friend act on behalf of with Service, 803 Public Assistance Social appointment; may a next friend out court (Wyo.1991). The issue confront P.2d 1372 may may not volunteer—thus a minor or or ing us here is one we left unanswered may represented. not be There is' no sub case. that guardian stantial difference between a ad Alewine, living in In a minor’s father friend, although litem and a next historical not learn of the State’s another state did reprеsented ly, guardian a ad litem a minor adoption attempt place to the minor into represented defendant and a next friend a long past period. the claim We af- until plaintiff. minor Id. firmed the trial court’s dismissal father’s claims the State for inter- Dye’s caption on the mother is listed custody child and intentional ference with daughter’s as her next friend. of this case reunify to negligent failure and refusal general authority The mother had as her having disputed family, the father not a guardian pursue to this action under his claim was barred due to the un- 17(c), timely she failed to act W.R.C.P. but mi- timely Conversely, notice of claim. daughter’s Dye, as on her behalf. Susan a from raised the issue and was excused nor minor, give timely was not able to notice timely provisions nоtice of claim be- requirement giving claim herself. The cause the father did not have a reasonable presupposes the existence of an indi notice opportunity his child’s to discover capable giving vidual notice. Turner v. proper time limit. 803 P.2d at within the 230, 879, 881, 59 Staggs, 89 Nev. However, holding limited our to 81, nom, A.L.R.3d denied sub Clark cert. case, were “out of the facts of that Turner, 414 Nevada v. U.S. County, ” ‘ordinary.’ at 1377. We declined Id. (1973). Dye’s 94 S.Ct. 38 L.Ed.2d confronting question us here to answer mother, friend, capable giv next necessary find it because “[w]e d[id] unwilling give ing notice but was either * * * ground in this in- to break new just to do so. In the notice or failed stance.” Id. minor, justice, interest of we cannot allow ability protect her no realistic who has minor, by unemancipated An him self, loss оf her claim because to suffer self, procedural capacity to sue or has no act. parent’s failure to 43 C.J.S. Infants be sued. See § (1978). Wyoming Rules Civil Procedure timely notice parent fails to file a When 17(c) “representative, such as a l-39-113(a), allows a pursuant to of claim W.S. committee, conservator, guardian, general adequately represent parent does not on a minor’s fiduciary” or like to act protect other powerless to child. The child is However, hold, therefore, behalf. that the We own interests. * * * required by the act, filing the claim fails to time for representative “if such on behalf of a Claims Act may his next friend or Governmental he sue begins run at the time of the ap- minor guardian ad litem. The court shall оf the trial I the decision by the would affirm guardian ad litem of a appointment court. 17(c). See W.S. pursuant to W.R.C.P. court failing to
l-39-113(a)(ii). disability for This minor disappears upon the a claim
file age majority.
reaching the might read as ad- here be decision
Our University holding in Awe v. to our
verse
In
tent that our decision Alewine, at 1379 803 P.2d ment. Nov. See J., (Thomas, dissenting). pro- for further and remanded
Reversed opinion. this
ceedings consistent with
THOMAS, J., dissenting opinion. files Justice,
THOMAS, dissenting. disposition of agree
I cannot with the majority in accordance with
this case that are set
opinion. I to the views adhere State, in Alewine v. my
forth dissent Services, Div.
Dept. аnd Social Health Services, Assistance and Social Public opinion represents
Recognizing that this Alewine, extending logical progression to the situation
the rule of that case
knowledge
guardian had
the natural
I
find that Awe v.
injury,
still would
(Wyo.
Wyoming,
University of
1975), over is sound law and should majority chooses to over
ruled. Since the our decision the extent that
rule Awe “to 985), disagreement” (Op. I am
here is in majority persuaded “that the firmly
more minority savings clause or adopting the claims statute.” Alew
exception for (Thomas, J.,
ine, dissent P.2d at 1379 guilty of
ing). The court is even more legislation
judicial than before.