Time Limits

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 re- quested more time for discovery, but after the stipulation had been entered, because the hus- band 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 con- cerning 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 un- reasonable 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). Law reviews. — For case note, “Criminal Procedure — The Right to a Speedy Trial — Has the Wyoming Supreme Court Correctly Applied the Balancing Test? Harvey v. State, 774 P.2d 87 (Wyo. 1989),” see XXV Land & Water L. Rev. 267 (1990). Except as may be permitted by the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure and the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure, time limits permitted or required by rules or court order may not be extended or modified by agreement of counsel, but only by order. Cross references. — As to time, see Rule 6, W.R.C.P., and Rule 45, W.R. Cr. P.