WYOMING COURT RULES

44 Make More Definite and the Motion to Strike,” see 12 Wyo. L.J. 264 (1958). VI. MOTION TO STRIKE VII. WAIVER OR PRESERVATION OF CERTAIN DEFENSES Right to challenge jurisdiction over sub- ject matter cannot be waived. — The right to challenge the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter cannot be waived, and the same rule applies to quasi-judicial bodies. Ruby v. Schuett, 360 P.2d 170, 1961 Wyo. LEXIS 84 (Wyo. 1961). Although the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person may under certain circum- stances be waived, the right to challenge juris- diction over the subject matter cannot be waived. Steffens v. Smith, 477 P.2d 119, 1970 Wyo. LEXIS 207 (Wyo. 1970). Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. — Nicholaus v. Nicholaus, 756 P.2d 1338, 1988 Wyo. LEXIS 95 (Wyo. 1988). Under an exception to the Feres doctrine, Wyoming’s Air National Guard and its adjutant general faced possible liability for terminating an officer without following all prescribed statutory procedures; state courts lacked sub- ject matter jurisdiction, however, because of the officer’s failure to timely seek review of the decision of the National Guard, since the Guard was, to at least some extent, a state agency. Nyberg v. State Military Dep’t, 2003 WY 43, 65 P.3d 1241, 2003 Wyo. LEXIS 53 (Wyo. 2003). But defense of lack of jurisdiction over person can be waived. — If a defendant makes one or more motions permitted under this rule, the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of defendant must be included or it will be waived. State ex rel. Sheehan v. District Court, 426 P.2d 431, 1967 Wyo. LEXIS 150 (Wyo. 1967); United Mine Workers, Local 1972 v. Decker Coal Co., 774 P.2d 1274, 1989 Wyo. LEXIS 128 (Wyo. 1989). It is necessary for a defendant to question the jurisdiction of the court over his person at his earliest opportunity; otherwise, such a defense will be considered to be waived. State ex rel. Sheehan v. District Court, 426 P.2d 431, 1967 Wyo. LEXIS 150 (Wyo. 1967). Voluntary appearance. — Natural father voluntarily appeared in an adoption proceeding and waived his right to contest the validity of service of process, thereby conferring the dis- trict court with personal jurisdiction over him,