green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
50.4 score
“whether the specificity requirement of the rule has been satisfied rests upon whether fair notice has been provided to the opposing party.”
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Robert E. James and Naomi R. James v. Gerald C. James and Gladys M. Winkel
whether the specificity requirement of the rule has been satisfied rests upon whether fair notice has been provided to the opposing party.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of the J. Kent Kinniburgh Revocable Trust Dated January 27, 1992, as Amended and Restated: Janel K. Kinniburgh, Beneficiary and Successor Trustee of the J. Kent Kinniburgh Revocable Trust Dated January 27, 1992 v. Jacque Moncur and Rosemary Steele, Successor Co-Trustees of the J. Kent Kinniburgh Revocable Trust Dated January 27, 1992
“The interpretation of unambiguous trust agreements is a matter of law for the court.” Forbes v. Forbes, 2022 WY 59, ¶ 31 , 509 P.3d 888 , 897 (Wyo. 2022) (Forbes II) (quoting Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 23 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1051 (Wyo. 2015) (Forbes I)). “[D]eterming the standard for measuring the performance of trustees is a question of law we review de novo.” Id. (citing Forbes I, ¶ 23, 341 P.3d at 1051 ).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Christine E. Aimone, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Martin Aimone Revocable Trust Agreement Dated the 18Th Day of March, 1993, as Amended, and as of the Estate of Martin Aimone and Frances Colleen Aimone, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Gay C. Aimone Revocable Trust Agreement Dated the 18Th Day of March, 1993, as Amended v. Benjamin W. Aimone Matthew M. Aimone William B. Aimone Jonathon I. Aimone, Individually and as of the Estate of Bruce William Aimone Michael J. Aimone Amanda M. Aimone Thomas A. Aimone Jacob D. Aimone and Behlee A. Aimone
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
“The interpretation of unambiguous trust agreements is a matter of law for the court.” Forbes v. Forbes, 2022 WY 59, ¶ 31 , 509 P.3d 888 , 897 (Wyo. 2022) (Forbes II) (quoting Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 23 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1051 (Wyo. 2015) (Forbes I)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Waldo E. Forbes v. William C. Forbes Julia Forbes Edith L. Forbes and Donald C. Bingham, individually and in their capacity as Trustees of the Beckton Ranch Trust U/A/D April 1, 1920
(7×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Forbes, ¶ 23, 341 P.3d at 1051 (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of the Phyllis V. Mcdill Revocable Trust: Thomas P. Mcdill, Jr., In His Individual Capacity as Beneficiary and Successor Trustee of the Phyliss Mcdill Revocable Trust. v. Michael G. Mcdill, In His Individual Capacity as Beneficiary of the Phyliss Mcdill Revocable Trust
Revocable Tr. v. Montoya, 2020 WY 116, ¶ 16 , 471 P.3d 984, 988 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Gowdy v. Cook, 2020 WY 3, ¶ 39 , 455 P.3d 1201, 1210-11 (Wyo. 2020), and Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 23 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1051 (Wyo. 2015)). [¶17] The district court’s order granting Michael’s motion for summary judgment recited what it found to be undisputed material facts and indicated that those facts came from both Michael’s Petition for Instructions and his Statement of Facts submitted in support of summary judgment.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
David W. Jackson, as Successor Trustee of the Phillip G. Jackson Family Revocable Trust v. Candyce L. Montoya and Richard L. Montoya
Gowdy v. Cook, 2020 WY 3, ¶ 39 , 455 P.3d 1201, 1210-11 (Wyo. 2020); Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 23 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1051 (Wyo. 2015).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gerald E. Gowdy, Beneficiary of the Marian Louise Jackson Living Trust v. Dennis C. Cook, Craig C. Cook and Cook and Associates, P.C.
Shriners Hospitals for Children v. First Northern Bank of Wyoming, 2016 WY 51, ¶ 40 , 373 P.3d 392, 405-06 (Wyo. 2016) (citing Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 23 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1051 (Wyo. 2015)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Gore v. The State of Wyoming
Wright, 2001 WY 128, ¶ 12 , 36 P.3d 617, 621 (Wyo. 2001) (citation omitted) (“[T]he findings of a trial judge concerning conclusions of law and disposition of the issues are presumptively correct . . . .”). “[T]his Court reviews a district court’s findings and conclusions using a clearly erroneous standard for the factual findings and a de novo standard for the conclusions of law.” Forbes v Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 22 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1050 (Wyo. 2015) (citing Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7 , 106 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo. 2005); see also Gould v. Ochsner, 2015 WY 101, ¶ 30 , 354 P.3d…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Redland v. Redland (In re Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust, Dated August 10, 1989)
(4×)
Forbes , ¶ 30, 341 P.3d at 1052 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joyce Halling and Medcon Inc., a Utah corporation v. David A. Yovanovich and Ornella Dalla Bona
Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 37 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1053 (Wyo. 2015) (“[0]ur job becomes complicated when we are presented with a judgment which fails to articulate clearly the *620 reasoning behind it.” (citation omitted)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamra Acorn, Rebecca Shwen, and Federer Holding Company, LLC, a Wyoming close limited liability company v. Lori Moncecchi and Dino Moncecchi
(4×)
Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶¶ 23-27 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1051-52 (Wyo. 2015).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamra Acorn, Rebecca Shwen, and Federer Holding Company, LLC, a Wyoming close limited liability company v. Lori Moncecchi and Dino Moncecchi
(4×)
Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶¶ 23-27 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1051-52 (Wyo. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Spencer D. Willey v. Bertha I. Willey, Allen F. Willey, Individually, and First Federal Savings Bank of Sheridan, Wyoming as Trustee of the Allen F. Willey Revocable Trust Dated September 12, 2001, as Amended and Restated On November 4, 2010
We relied on Morris in Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 82 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1063 (Wyo. 2015), when we determined a motion in limine and objection in a pretrial ruling was sufficient to preserve a claim regarding an expert’s testimony on appeal.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shriners Hospitals for Children, In Its Capacity as Beneficiary of the Alfred J. and Pegge A. Cooksley Trust v. First Northern Bank of Wyoming, In Its Capacity as Trustee of the Alfred J. and Pegge A. Cooksley Trust
Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 23 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1051 (Wyo.2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of the Paternity of HLG, Minor Child: JN v. RFSG
However, we implicitly recognized in Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶¶ 79-89 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1062-64 (Wyo.2015), that Winterholler is still relevant in analyzing whether a party's failure to produce information required by the discovery rules is harmless.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leon N. Rogers and Brenda K. Rogers v. Jeffrey Wright, JWright Development, LLC, and JWright Companies, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 39 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1054 (Wyo.2015). [¶27] With respect to negligence claims, "[njo specification of the facts upon which the conclusion of negligence is based [need be] included." Id., $40, 341 P.3d at 1054 (quoting Guggenmos v. Tom Searl-Frank McCue, Inc., 481 P.2d 48, 51 (Wyo.1971)) (alterations in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gould v. Ochsner
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 22 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1050-51 (Wyo.2015) (citing Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7 , 106 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo.2005)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Evertson v. Evertson Fiduciary Mgmt. Corp. (In re Bruce F. Evertson Dynasty Trust)
See Ecosystem Res., L.C. , ¶ 8, 158 P.3d at 687-88 ("If an issue of fact exists, [a] motion [for judgment on the pleadings] should not be granted."). [¶39] We recognize "[i]nterpretation of an unambiguous trust instrument is a matter of law for the court." Shriners , ¶ 40, 373 P.3d at 405 (citing Forbes v. Forbes , 2015 WY 13 , ¶ 23, 341 P.3d 1041 , 1051 (Wyo. 2015) ).
cited
Cited "see"
Forbes Family Ranch Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Forbes
See Forbes v. Forbes , 341 P.3d 1041 (Wyo. 2015).
cited
Cited "see"
James F. Gould Iv, Individually, and Erin Gould, Individually, and J.G., a Minor, By and Through James F. Gould Iv, Her Father and Next Friend, and J.G., a Minor, By and Through James F. Gould Iv, His Father and Next Friend v. Daniel Ochsner, Individually, and Flying River Ranch Llc, and Yu Land and Cattle, Llc
See Forbes, ¶ 22, 341 P.3d at 1050– 51. 11 [¶32] The Goulds, specifically Mr. Gould and his wife, Erin Gould, transferred the JF brand to the Flying River Ranch by a bill of sale dated June 5, 2009.
discussed
Cited "see"
Basic Energy Services, L.P. v. Petroleum Resource Management, Corp.
See Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶¶ 38-44 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1054-55 (Wyo.2015) (finding that the pleading did not provide fair notice to the opposing party of the plaintiff's claim); see also Ridgerunner, LLC v. Meisinger, 2013 WY 31, ¶ 12 , 297 P.3d 110, 114 (Wyo.2013) (stating that notice pleading requires that fair notice be given to the defendant).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Downs v. Homax Oil Sales, Inc.
See also, Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13 , ¶¶ 79-89, 341 P.3d 1041 , 1062-64 (Wyo. 2015). [¶29] Given Homax insisted in the proceedings below that it was not required to provide its damages evidence to Mr. Downs because he had not requested it in discovery, it made no effort to establish that its failure *526 was substantially justified or harmless.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kurt YOUNG, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
v.
the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
S-14-0192.
Wyoming Supreme Court.
Jan 7, 2015.
Published
OrpEr ArrirmiInc tas District Court's "JUDGMENT, SENTENCE AND ORDER oF INCARCERATION'
[¶ 1] This matter came before the Court upon the filing of Appellant's pro se "Brief of Appellant." Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered unconditional guilty pleas to one felony and two misdemeanors: delivery of methamphetamine, possession of mariJuana, and possession of methamphetamine. This is Appellant's direct appeal from the resulting convictions. On October 28, 2014, Appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a second "Motion to Withdraw as Counsel," pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Following a careful review of the record and the "Anders briefs" submitted by counsel, this Court, on November 18, 2014, entered its "Order Granting Motion for Court-Appointed Counsel to Withdraw." That Order notified Appellant the District Court's June 10, 2014, "Judgment, Sentence and Order of Incarceration" would be affirmed unless, on or before January 5, 2015, Appellant filed a brief that persuaded this Court the captioned appeal is not wholly frivolous. Appellant filed his pro se "Brief of Appellant" on December 11, 2014. After a careful review of that brief, this Court concludes that it presents no meritorious issue based on the record extant. Instead, the brief, for the most part, presents issues that were considered in the Anders briefs. It is, therefore,
[¶ 2] ORDERED that the district court's June 10, 2014, "Judgment, Sentence and Order of Incarceration" be, and the same hereby is, affirmed in all respects.
[¶ 8] DATED this 7th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E.. JAMES BURKE Chief Justice