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.
25 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1959–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Worthington v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Mem’l Hosp. v. Pfeifle, 2014 WY 3 , ¶ 17, 317 P.3d 573, 578 (Wyo. 2014). “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity has its ‘roots in the ancient common law of England which held “The King can do no wrong” and hence could not be sued in any court of law.’” Id. (quoting Worthington v. State, 598 P.2d 796, 803 (Wyo. 1979)). 2015That appeal, however, is appropriately addressed to the legislature or, perhaps, to the School District. [120] We have previously explained that the doctrine of sovereign immunity "has its roots in the ancient common law of England which held 'The King can do no wrong and henee could not be sued in any court of law." Worthington v. State, 598 P.2d 796, 803 (Wyo.1979) (footnote omitted). | 4 | 7 |
Ruppenthal v. State Ex Rel. Economic Development & Stabilization Boardgreen2 sentences2021Dev. & Stabilization Bd., 849 P.2d 1316, 1320 (Wyo. 1993) (under the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity, a state is not subject to suit without its express consent) (citation omitted). [¶15] This interpretation of the Claims Act as retaining the State’s immunity from suit except in certain limited situations is consistent with our Constitution. 2020BOOMGAARDEN, Justice. [¶1] We granted Lantz-Boggio Architects, P.C.’s petition for writ of review to answer whether: a claim which would otherwise be barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity for failure to comply with the claims procedure of the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act [may] nonetheless be asserted as a counterclaim in a government- initiated lawsuit if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the government’s claim and is asserted to reduce or defeat the government’s claim[.] [¶2] We conclude, and the parties agree, 1 that Ruppenthal v. Sta | 3 | 3 |
Perkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2014We acknowledged in Worthington that the doctrine of sovereign immunity has its "roots in the ancient common law of England which held 'The King can do no wrong' and hence could not be sued in any court of law." Id. at 803 (quoting Perkins v. State, 252 Ind. 549 , 251 N.E.2d 80 , 82 (1969)). [T 18] In reality, of course, the King does "do wrong," but the right to seek redress for such wrong is determined by the policy and will of the legislative body. 2014We acknowledged in Worthington that the doctrine of sovereign immunity has its "roots in the ancient common law of England which held 'The King can do no wrong' and hence could not be sued in any court of law." Id. at 803 (quoting Perkins v. State, 252 Ind. 549 , 251 N.E.2d 80 , 82 (1969)). [T 18] In reality, of course, the King does "do wrong," but the right to seek redress for such wrong is determined by the policy and will of the legislative body. | 1 | 2 |
cluster 2097green2 sentences2025“The denial of relief under Rule 41(g) is not with prejudice against the movant’s filing a civil suit for the value of property taken from him and then lost.” United States v. Norwood, 602 F.3d 830, 837 (7th Cir. 2010). 2025“The denial of relief under Rule 41(g) is not with prejudice against the movant’s filing a civil suit for the value of property taken from him and then lost.” United States v. Norwood, 602 F.3d 830, 837 (7th Cir. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Clymore v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2025After reviewing the available federal cases, we agreed with the majority view that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under Rule 41 when the government no longer possesses the property.2 Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26, 2 Those courts include: Clymore v. United States, 415 F.3d 1113, 1120 (10th Cir. 2005) (“We agree with the majority of the circuits and conclude sovereign immunity bars monetary relief in a Rule 41 ([g]) proceeding when the government no longer possesses the property”); Adeleke v. United States, 355 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Rule 41(g), which simply provides for the return of seized | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Esther Bein and William Beingreen1 sentence2025After reviewing the available federal cases, we agreed with the majority view that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under Rule 41 when the government no longer possesses the property.2 Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26, 2 Those courts include: Clymore v. United States, 415 F.3d 1113, 1120 (10th Cir. 2005) (“We agree with the majority of the circuits and conclude sovereign immunity bars monetary relief in a Rule 41 ([g]) proceeding when the government no longer possesses the property”); Adeleke v. United States, 355 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Rule 41(g), which simply provides for the return of seized | 1 | 1 |
Ralphael Okoro v. William Callaghangreen1 sentence2025After reviewing the available federal cases, we agreed with the majority view that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under Rule 41 when the government no longer possesses the property.2 Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26, 2 Those courts include: Clymore v. United States, 415 F.3d 1113, 1120 (10th Cir. 2005) (“We agree with the majority of the circuits and conclude sovereign immunity bars monetary relief in a Rule 41 ([g]) proceeding when the government no longer possesses the property”); Adeleke v. United States, 355 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Rule 41(g), which simply provides for the return of seized | 1 | 1 |
Hammed Adeleke v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2025After reviewing the available federal cases, we agreed with the majority view that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under Rule 41 when the government no longer possesses the property.2 Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26, 2 Those courts include: Clymore v. United States, 415 F.3d 1113, 1120 (10th Cir. 2005) (“We agree with the majority of the circuits and conclude sovereign immunity bars monetary relief in a Rule 41 ([g]) proceeding when the government no longer possesses the property”); Adeleke v. United States, 355 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Rule 41(g), which simply provides for the return of seized | 1 | 1 |
Campbell County Memorial Hospital v. Jaime A. Williams Pfeifle and Josh Pfeiflegreen2 sentences2024Mem’l Hosp. v. Pfeifle, 2014 WY 3 , ¶ 17, 317 P.3d 573, 578 (Wyo. 2014). “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity has its ‘roots in the ancient common law of England which held “The King can do no wrong” and hence could not be sued in any court of law.’” Id. (quoting Worthington v. State, 598 P.2d 796, 803 (Wyo. 1979)). 2024Mem’l Hosp. v. Pfeifle, 2014 WY 3 , ¶ 17, 317 P.3d 573, 578 (Wyo. 2014). “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity has its ‘roots in the ancient common law of England which held “The King can do no wrong” and hence could not be sued in any court of law.’” Id. (quoting Worthington v. State, 598 P.2d 796, 803 (Wyo. 1979)). | 1 | 1 |
State Department of Corrections v. Wattsgreen1 sentence2022State Hosp. v. Romine, 2021 WY 47, ¶ 15 , 483 P.3d 840 , 845 (Wyo. 2021) (the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act retains the State’s sovereign immunity); Watts, ¶ 20, 177 P.3d at 798-99 (“We will use our standard rules of statutory construction to determine whether the legislature intended that immunity be waived for a particular claim [under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act] 8 [¶22] Section 23-1-901 states in relevant part: (a) Any landowner . . . whose property is being damaged by any of the . . . trophy game animals . . . of this state shall, not later than fifteen (15) days after the damag | 1 | 1 |
Parker Land & Cattle Co. v. Wyoming Game & Fish Commissiongreen2 sentences2022Game & Fish Comm’n, 845 P.2d 1040, 1044, 1050 (Wyo. 1993), the Department maintains § 23-1-901 is a waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity and must be “strictly construed against ‘derogation of the [S]tate’s sovereignty.’” However, Parker’s suggestion that § 23-1-901 constituted a waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity garnered the agreement of only two justices. 2022Parker, 845 P.2d at 1079-1080 (Thomas, J., and Cardine, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Weber v. Stategreen2 sentences2021As we explained in Weber v. State, 2011 WY 127, ¶ 25 , 261 P.3d 225, 232 (Wyo. 2011), immunity and liability are distinct concepts. 2021As we explained in Weber v. State, 2011 WY 127, ¶ 25 , 261 P.3d 225, 232 (Wyo. 2011), immunity and liability are distinct concepts. | 1 | 1 |
Vigil v. Ruettgersgreen1 sentence2021Article 1, § 8 of the Wyoming Constitution provides in relevant part: “Suits may be brought against the state in such manner and in such courts as the legislature may by law direct.” We have repeatedly held this provision “requires explicit legislative authorization before a suit can be maintained against the state.” Vigil, 887 P.2d at 524 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Heimer v. Antelope Valley Improvementgreen2 sentences2021See also, Heimer v. Antelope Valley Improvement, 2010 WY 29, ¶ 15 , 226 P.3d 860, 863 (Wyo. 2010) (“Although governmental entities are traditionally immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Wyoming legislature recognized ‘the inherently unfair and inequitable results which occur in the strict application of governmental immunity’ and enacted the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act . . . .” (emphasis added)); Bd. of Cnty. 2021See also, Heimer v. Antelope Valley Improvement, 2010 WY 29, ¶ 15 , 226 P.3d 860, 863 (Wyo. 2010) (“Although governmental entities are traditionally immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Wyoming legislature recognized ‘the inherently unfair and inequitable results which occur in the strict application of governmental immunity’ and enacted the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act . . . .” (emphasis added)); Bd. of Cnty. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stovallgreen2 sentences2003See State v. Stovall, *960 648 P.2d 543, 548 (Wyo.1982). 2003See State v. Stovall, *960 648 P.2d 543, 548 (Wyo.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Cranston v. Weston County Weed & Pest Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
Wallace G. Frederick v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1993In the leading federal case of Frederick v. United States, 386 F.2d 481 (5th Cir.1967), the United States sued the guarantor of a government loan to recover an amount allegedly due after the sale of collateral. 1993The Frederick court concluded: [W]hen the sovereign sues it waives immunity as to claims of the defendant which assert matters in recoupment— arising out of the same transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the government’s suit, and to the extent of defeating the government's claim but not to the extent of a judgment against the government which is affirmative in the sense of involving relief different in kind or nature to that sought by the government or in the sense of exceeding the amount of the government’s claims; but the sovereign does not waive immunity as to claims whi | 1 | 1 |
| Washakie County School District Number One v. Herschlergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Ass'n v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Evanston v. Griffithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highwaysgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Educationred | 1 | 1 |
| Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DeLOGE v. State
green
2 sentences2025After reviewing the available federal cases, we agreed with the majority view that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under Rule 41 when the government no longer possesses the property.2 Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26, 2 Those courts include: Clymore v. United States, 415 F.3d 1113, 1120 (10th Cir. 2005) (“We agree with the majority of the circuits and conclude sovereign immunity bars monetary relief in a Rule 41 ([g]) proceeding when the government no longer possesses the property”); Adeleke v. United States, 355 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Rule 41(g), which simply provides for the return of seized 2025Accordingly, we concluded “the district court correctly denied Mr. DeLoge’s request for damages because his claim is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Id. at ¶ 26, 231 P.3d at 867–68. [¶22] The same result is required here. | 2 | 2013–2025 |
Hafer v. Melo
green
2 sentences2016Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 , 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105 , 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985); Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 , 112 S.Ct. 358, 361 , 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). 2016Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 , 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105 , 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985); Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 , 112 S.Ct. 358, 361 , 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Kentucky v. Graham
green
2 sentences2016Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 , 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105 , 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985); Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 , 112 S.Ct. 358, 361 , 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). 2016Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 , 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105 , 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985); Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 , 112 S.Ct. 358, 361 , 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Hjorth Royalty Company v. Trustees of University
green
2 sentences2014As this Court noted in Worthington v. State, 598 P.2d 796, 801 (Wyo.1979): There are few, if any, precedents or rules that have been recognized longer or followed with greater fidelity than the rule that was set out in the case of Hjorth Royalty Company v. Trustees of University, 80 Wyo. 309 , 222 P. 9 (1924), which held that Art. 1, § 8, Wyoming Constitution, is not self-executing; that no suit can be maintained against the State until the legislature makes provision for such filing; and, that absent such consent, no suit or claim could be made against the State. 2014As this Court noted in Worthington v. State, 598 P.2d 796, 801 (Wyo.1979): There are few, if any, precedents or rules that have been recognized longer or followed with greater fidelity than the rule that was set out in the case of Hjorth Royalty Company v. Trustees of University, 80 Wyo. 309 , 222 P. 9 (1924), which held that Art. 1, § 8, Wyoming Constitution, is not self-executing; that no suit can be maintained against the State until the legislature makes provision for such filing; and, that absent such consent, no suit or claim could be made against the State. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Collins v. Memorial Hospital of Sheridan County
green
2 sentences1989Conversely in Collins v. Memorial Hospital of Sheridan County, 521 P.2d 1339 (Wyo. 1974), we determined that the purpose of insurance constituted a waiver of immunity, at least to the amount of the insurance coverage, and recognized that in response to Maffei, a statute had been enacted. 1989Conversely in Collins v. Memorial Hospital of Sheridan County, 521 P.2d 1339 (Wyo.1974), we determined that the purpose of insurance constituted a waiver of immunity, at least to the amount of the insurance coverage, and recognized that in response to Maffei, a statute had been enacted. | 2 | 1976–1989 |
Jivelekas v. City of Worland
green
2 sentences1989Even Justice Raper, in his dissent in Jivelekas, 546 P.2d at 434 , recognized the appropriateness of change: It is not the duty nor the function of this or any court to tell a legislature how to perform its legislative function. 1989My views on this subject are sufficiently set forth in Jivelekas v. City of Worland, Wyo., 546 P.2d 419 , and need not be reiterated here. | 2 | 1978–1989 |
Nieting v. Blondell
green
2 sentences1986In one of the cases cited, Nieting v. Blonde!!, 306 Minn. 122 , 235 N.W.2d 597 , 603 n. 14 (1975), the Minnesota Supreme Court expressly noted: "We have been urged to declare the doctrine of sovereign immunity to be unconstitutional as a violation of due process or equal protection. 1986In one of the cases cited, Nieting v. Blonde!!, 306 Minn. 122 , 235 N.W.2d 597 , 603 n. 14 (1975), the Minnesota Supreme Court expressly noted: "We have been urged to declare the doctrine of sovereign immunity to be unconstitutional as a violation of due process or equal protection. | 2 | 1976–1986 |
United States v. Carlos Miguel Potes Ramirez
green
1 sentence2025After reviewing the available federal cases, we agreed with the majority view that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under Rule 41 when the government no longer possesses the property.2 Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26, 2 Those courts include: Clymore v. United States, 415 F.3d 1113, 1120 (10th Cir. 2005) (“We agree with the majority of the circuits and conclude sovereign immunity bars monetary relief in a Rule 41 ([g]) proceeding when the government no longer possesses the property”); Adeleke v. United States, 355 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Rule 41(g), which simply provides for the return of seized | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Byron Jones, A/K/A Carl Lee, A/K/A \B\""
green
1 sentence2025After reviewing the available federal cases, we agreed with the majority view that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under Rule 41 when the government no longer possesses the property.2 Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26, 2 Those courts include: Clymore v. United States, 415 F.3d 1113, 1120 (10th Cir. 2005) (“We agree with the majority of the circuits and conclude sovereign immunity bars monetary relief in a Rule 41 ([g]) proceeding when the government no longer possesses the property”); Adeleke v. United States, 355 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Rule 41(g), which simply provides for the return of seized | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States of America v. Roy Lee Hall
green
1 sentence2025After reviewing the available federal cases, we agreed with the majority view that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under Rule 41 when the government no longer possesses the property.2 Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26, 2 Those courts include: Clymore v. United States, 415 F.3d 1113, 1120 (10th Cir. 2005) (“We agree with the majority of the circuits and conclude sovereign immunity bars monetary relief in a Rule 41 ([g]) proceeding when the government no longer possesses the property”); Adeleke v. United States, 355 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Rule 41(g), which simply provides for the return of seized | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Wyoming State Hospital and State of Wyoming v. Mary Romine and Donald Romine, as Guardians and Conservators for and On Behalf of Justina Case, Their Ward
green
1 sentence2022State Hosp. v. Romine, 2021 WY 47, ¶ 15 , 483 P.3d 840 , 845 (Wyo. 2021) (the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act retains the State’s sovereign immunity); Watts, ¶ 20, 177 P.3d at 798-99 (“We will use our standard rules of statutory construction to determine whether the legislature intended that immunity be waived for a particular claim [under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act] 8 [¶22] Section 23-1-901 states in relevant part: (a) Any landowner . . . whose property is being damaged by any of the . . . trophy game animals . . . of this state shall, not later than fifteen (15) days after the damag | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Longacre v. State
green
1 sentence1998The Commission relies upon Longacre v. State, 448 P.2d 832 (Wyo.1968), for this assertion. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co. v. Apodaca
green
1 sentence1993We find, however, that Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co. v. Apodaca, 524 P.2d 874 (Wyo.1974), is instructive. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Duran v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences1993Cranston v. Weston County Weed and Pest Board, 826 P.2d 251, 255 (Wyo.1992); Duran v. Board of County Commissioners of Sweetwater County, 787 P.2d 971 (Wyo.1990). 1993Cranston v. Weston County Weed and Pest Board, 826 P.2d 251, 255 (Wyo.1992); Duran v. Board of County Commissioners of Sweetwater County, 787 P.2d 971 (Wyo.1990). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Marbury v. Madison green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Sousa v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Willis v. Dept. of Cons. & Ec. Dev. green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State v. Brosseau green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| McCall v. Batson red | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Pruett v. City of Rosedale red | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Krause v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District red | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Bearden v. Metropolitan Dade County green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Holland-America Line v. Foreign Study League neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Retail Clerks Local 187 AFL-CIO v. University of Wyoming green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Oroz v. Board of County Com'rs of Carbon County green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| O'Dell Ex Rel. O'Dell v. School District of Independence green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Hicks v. State red | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Lovings v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Lore v. Town of Douglas green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Long v. City of Weirton green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Vigil v. State neutral | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.