Rule 201 Continuances

Cases will not be continued upon stipulation of counsel. Continuances will be granted only for good cause shown in writing. Trial court has discretion to grant or deny continuance. — Craver v. Craver, 601 P.2d 999, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 476 (Wyo. 1979). Continuance denied when problem fault of moving party. — The trial court may deny a continuance if the problem which gives rise to the request for a continuance is the fault of the party moving for the continuance. Craver v. Craver, 601 P.2d 999, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 476 (Wyo. 1979). A court will deny a continuance where the problem which gives rise to the request is the fault of the movant. Sharp v. Sharp, 671 P.2d 317, 1983 Wyo. LEXIS 381 (Wyo. 1983). Trial court properly denied a husband’s request for a continuance because his counsel’s late withdrawal was due to the husband’s failure to cooperate and his obstruction of an orderly progression of a divorce action. Byrd v. Mahaffey, 2003 WY 137, 78 P.3d 671, 2003 Wyo. LEXIS 167 (Wyo. 2003). Such as when party discharges counsel. — It is not an abuse of discretion to deny a continuance to a party which has discharged its counsel. Bacon v. Carey Co., 669 P.2d 533, 1983 Wyo. LEXIS 361 (Wyo. 1983). Denial of continuance not abuse of discretion. — See Stogner v. State, 674 P.2d 1298, 1984 Wyo. LEXIS 247 (Wyo. 1984). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a continuance, because all of the information lead counsel gathered was available to the two remaining attorneys after he withdrew, and both of the remaining attorneys became involved in the case early on in the proceedings. Sincock v. State, 2003 WY 115, 76 P.3d 323, 2003 Wyo. LEXIS 135 (Wyo. 2003). District court did not abuse its discretion by denying a husband’s motion for a continuance under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which was made during a hearing at which the husband requested more time for discovery, but after the stipulation had been entered, because the husband did not meet his burden of coming forward with the requisite level of clear and convincing evidence to sustain his claim; the husband’s offer of proof did nothing to advance his claims of fraud and did not excuse his lack of evidence to support his personal opinion that his wife had defrauded him during their divorce concerning an athletic club. Richard v. Richard, 2007 WY 180, 170 P.3d 612, 2007 Wyo. LEXIS 192 (Wyo. 2007). Five-days’ notice of trial was per se unreasonable where the short period of time prevented the party from having the testimony of his expert witness and presenting his case on the merits, and it was an abuse of discretion to refuse a continuance. Urich v. Fox, 687 P.2d 893, 1984 Wyo. LEXIS 336 (Wyo. 1984).