Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

894 P.2d 607

Murray v. Murray

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1995

Wyoming Supreme Court · decided 1995-04-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“'It is basic that, before a property interest can be terminated, except in emergency situations, due process must be afforded to litigants in the form of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”

quoted by 6 later decisions, including Loghry v. Loghry, Tageant v. Tageant

Relies on Sandstrom v. Sandstrom · Lawrence-Allison & Associates West, Inc. v. Archer

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-04-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2012

12 state decisions

70199520002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

TAYLOR, Justice.

¶1 Appellant appeals from an order dissolving his marriage to appellee. Appellant filed a timely motion for continuance and a request for transportation from the Wyoming State Penitentiary to the divorce hearing. The district court did not respond to the motion or the request.

¶2 I. ISSUES

¶3 Appellant, appearing pro se, sets forth one issue in the form of a statement:

Mr. Murray has been deprived of his constitutional rights to due process by the trial court’s refusal to allow him to be present at the trial, and by refusing to issue rulings on defense motions, completely preventing Mr. Murray from having an opportunity to be heard.

¶4 Appellee did not present an appellate brief for review.

¶5*608 II.FACTS

¶6 Appellee, Carol Ann Murray (Carol), filed a complaint for divorce seeking dissolution of her marriage to appellant, Peter Kole Murray (Peter). A hearing was set for June 15, 1994 and Peter filed a timely motion for continuance and a request for transportation from the Wyoming State Penitentiary in Rawlins, Wyoming to the divorce hearing in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The district court did not respond to the motion or the request and the trial proceeded as scheduled. Peter, incarcerated at the Wyoming State Penitentiary, did not appear and judgment was entered against him.

¶7 III. DISCUSSION

¶8 The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Wyoming each provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1; Wyo. Const, art. 1, § 6. “ ‘It is basic that, before a property interest can be terminated, except in emergency situations, due process must be afforded to litigants in the form of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.’ ” Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 880 P.2d 103, 106 (Wyo.1994) (quoting Lawrence-Allison and Associates West, Inc. v. Archer, 767 P.2d 989, 997 (Wyo.1989)) (emphasis in original). It would have been a simple matter to allow Peter to participate in the divorce hearing via conference call. Peter, however, was denied his day in court.

¶9 IV. CONCLUSION

¶10 We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

/894/p2d/607 · .json · Public domain