Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wyoming courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Manes v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Manes, 2004 WY 70, ¶ 13 , 92 P.3d at 293 . [¶18] Finally, Mr. Atkinson cannot establish the third prong of plain error—material prejudice. 2026See Manes, 2004 WY 70, ¶ 13 , 92 P.3d at 293 . [¶18] Finally, Mr. Atkinson cannot establish the third prong of plain error—material prejudice. | 1 | 1 |
Schmuck v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See id. ¶ 35, 406 P.3d at 298 (“[I]t remains unnecessary to decide when a rule of law must be ‘clear and unequivocal’ under the second prong of plain error review. [Appellant] suffered no prejudice from the instruction given and cannot satisfy the third prong.”). [¶18] The testimony the prosecutor elicited from Dr. Wilkinson did not introduce the type of self-incriminating statements or evidence of guilt the statutory limitations are designed to protect against. | 1 | 1 |
Zacharia Lee Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2017We found it Unnecessary to decide the question, however, because the appellant could not show prejudice sufficient to meet the third prong of plain error review, Id. at ¶ 8,360 P.3d at 266 (“Even assuming that the alleged error should be evaluated at the time of appellate, consideration and that Appellant can establish that Jury Instruction No. 14 violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law, Appellant has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the instruction.”); see also Johnson v. State, 2015 WY 118, ¶ 21 , 356 P.3d 767, 773 (Wyo. 2015) (declining to decide whether the violation of the 2017We found it Unnecessary to decide the question, however, because the appellant could not show prejudice sufficient to meet the third prong of plain error review, Id. at ¶ 8,360 P.3d at 266 (“Even assuming that the alleged error should be evaluated at the time of appellate, consideration and that Appellant can establish that Jury Instruction No. 14 violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law, Appellant has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the instruction.”); see also Johnson v. State, 2015 WY 118, ¶ 21 , 356 P.3d 767, 773 (Wyo. 2015) (declining to decide whether the violation of the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Leon Van Buren Freer v. The State of Wyoming
green
2 sentences2024Freer, ¶ 24, 533 P.3d at 904 . 2024Freer, ¶ 24, 533 P.3d at 904 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Jade Jewkes v. The State of Wyoming
green
1 sentence2026Jewkes, 2022 WY 90, ¶ 8 , 513 P.3d at 158 (citing Ridinger, ¶ 33, 478 P.3d at 1168 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Martin Alan Ridinger v. The State of Wyoming
green
1 sentence2026Jewkes, 2022 WY 90, ¶ 8 , 513 P.3d at 158 (citing Ridinger, ¶ 33, 478 P.3d at 1168 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.