Brimmer test (Wyoming) · Go Syfert
← Wyoming issues

Brimmer test in Wyoming

20 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2025 8 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.

Followed or applied (10)

CaseFollowedCited
Brimmer v. Thomsongreen
wyo · 1974 · cited in 6 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2001–2022
2 sentences

2022Ranch Improvement #1, LLC v. Goddard, 2020 WY 115, ¶ 51 , 471 P.3d 307, 322 (Wyo. 2020); Allred, ¶ 37, 409 P.3d at 270 (quoting Brimmer v. Thomson, 521 P.2d 574, 578 (Wyo. 1974)); William F. West Ranch, ¶ 12, 206 P.3d at 727 ; see also McDill II, ¶ 29, 506 P.3d at 762 (“Prudential standing requires application of the Brimmer test, a four-part test to determine ‘whether there is ‘such dispute which could serve as the basis of a justiciable issue[.]’’” (quoting Allred, ¶ 37, 409 P.3d at 270 )). [¶34] Brimmer articulated the following four-part test for standing: 1.

2022Ranch Improvement #1, LLC v. Goddard, 2020 WY 115, ¶ 51 , 471 P.3d 307, 322 (Wyo. 2020); Allred, ¶ 37, 409 P.3d at 270 (quoting Brimmer v. Thomson, 521 P.2d 574, 578 (Wyo. 1974)); William F. West Ranch, ¶ 12, 206 P.3d at 727 ; see also McDill II, ¶ 29, 506 P.3d at 762 (“Prudential standing requires application of the Brimmer test, a four-part test to determine ‘whether there is ‘such dispute which could serve as the basis of a justiciable issue[.]’’” (quoting Allred, ¶ 37, 409 P.3d at 270 )). [¶34] Brimmer articulated the following four-part test for standing: 1.

56
William F. West Ranch, LLC v. Tyrrellgreen
wyo · 2009 · cited in 7 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2013–2025
2 sentences

2022Ranch Improvement #1, LLC v. Goddard, 2020 WY 115, ¶ 51 , 471 P.3d 307, 322 (Wyo. 2020); Allred, ¶ 37, 409 P.3d at 270 (quoting Brimmer v. Thomson, 521 P.2d 574, 578 (Wyo. 1974)); William F. West Ranch, ¶ 12, 206 P.3d at 727 ; see also McDill II, ¶ 29, 506 P.3d at 762 (“Prudential standing requires application of the Brimmer test, a four-part test to determine ‘whether there is ‘such dispute which could serve as the basis of a justiciable issue[.]’’” (quoting Allred, ¶ 37, 409 P.3d at 270 )). [¶34] Brimmer articulated the following four-part test for standing: 1.

2022Ranch Improvement #1, LLC v. Goddard, 2020 WY 115, ¶ 51 , 471 P.3d 307, 322 (Wyo. 2020); Allred, ¶ 37, 409 P.3d at 270 (quoting Brimmer v. Thomson, 521 P.2d 574, 578 (Wyo. 1974)); William F. West Ranch, ¶ 12, 206 P.3d at 727 ; see also McDill II, ¶ 29, 506 P.3d at 762 (“Prudential standing requires application of the Brimmer test, a four-part test to determine ‘whether there is ‘such dispute which could serve as the basis of a justiciable issue[.]’’” (quoting Allred, ¶ 37, 409 P.3d at 270 )). [¶34] Brimmer articulated the following four-part test for standing: 1.

27
Allred v. Beboutgreen
wyo · 2018 · cited in 6 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2018–2025
2 sentences

2022Ranch Improvement #1, LLC v. Goddard, 2020 WY 115, ¶ 51 , 471 P.3d 307, 322 (Wyo. 2020); Allred, ¶ 37, 409 P.3d at 270 (quoting Brimmer v. Thomson, 521 P.2d 574, 578 (Wyo. 1974)); William F. West Ranch, ¶ 12, 206 P.3d at 727 ; see also McDill II, ¶ 29, 506 P.3d at 762 (“Prudential standing requires application of the Brimmer test, a four-part test to determine ‘whether there is ‘such dispute which could serve as the basis of a justiciable issue[.]’’” (quoting Allred, ¶ 37, 409 P.3d at 270 )). [¶34] Brimmer articulated the following four-part test for standing: 1.

2022Ranch Improvement #1, LLC v. Goddard, 2020 WY 115, ¶ 51 , 471 P.3d 307, 322 (Wyo. 2020); Allred, ¶ 37, 409 P.3d at 270 (quoting Brimmer v. Thomson, 521 P.2d 574, 578 (Wyo. 1974)); William F. West Ranch, ¶ 12, 206 P.3d at 727 ; see also McDill II, ¶ 29, 506 P.3d at 762 (“Prudential standing requires application of the Brimmer test, a four-part test to determine ‘whether there is ‘such dispute which could serve as the basis of a justiciable issue[.]’’” (quoting Allred, ¶ 37, 409 P.3d at 270 )). [¶34] Brimmer articulated the following four-part test for standing: 1.

26
TC & GC v. State (In re L-Mhb)green
wyo · 2018 · cited in 4 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2019–2025
2 sentences

2019L-MHB, ¶ 19, 431 P.3d at 567 (quoting Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 126 , 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1386 , 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014)). [¶10] Wyoming’s prudential standing test, known as the Brimmer test, incorporates these same general principles.

2019L-MHB, ¶ 19, 431 P.3d at 567 (quoting Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 126 , 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1386 , 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014)). [¶10] Wyoming’s prudential standing test, known as the Brimmer test, incorporates these same general principles.

24
Johnson County Ranch Improvement 1, Llc, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company and Sand Creek Ranch Preservation Association, Inc., a Wyoming Nonprofit Corporation v. Greg L. Goddard Luke Andrew Goddard Marcia Goddard and Goddard Ranch, Llc, a Wyoming Limited Liability Companygreen
wyo · 2020 · cited in 3 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2022–2025
2 sentences

2025Ranch Improvement #1, LLC v. Goddard, 2020 WY 115, ¶ 51 , 471 P.3d 307 , 322 (Wyo. 2020)). 13 [¶37] In applying the first part of the Brimmer test, we have held “[t]he Declaratory Judgments Act gives the courts no power to determine future rights or anticipated disputes or controversies.” Id. at ¶ 36, 509 P.3d at 898 (quoting William F. W.

2025Ranch Improvement #1, LLC v. Goddard, 2020 WY 115, ¶ 51 , 471 P.3d 307 , 322 (Wyo. 2020)). 13 [¶37] In applying the first part of the Brimmer test, we have held “[t]he Declaratory Judgments Act gives the courts no power to determine future rights or anticipated disputes or controversies.” Id. at ¶ 36, 509 P.3d at 898 (quoting William F. W.

23
Max Maxfield, In His Individual Capacity v. State of Wyominggreen
wyo · 2013 · cited in 3 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2013–2025
2 sentences

2025See id.; see also Maxfield v. State, 2013 WY 14 , ¶¶ 20–24, 294 P.3d 895 , 900–01 (Wyo. 2013) (holding that the case presented a matter of public importance but concluding the plaintiff also met the requirements for standing under the Brimmer test).

2025See id.; see also Maxfield v. State, 2013 WY 14 , ¶¶ 20–24, 294 P.3d 895 , 900–01 (Wyo. 2013) (holding that the case presented a matter of public importance but concluding the plaintiff also met the requirements for standing under the Brimmer test).

23
Alex Jordan Vaughn v. Stategreen
wyo · 2017 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
2 sentences

2025See Vaughn v. State, 2017 WY 29, ¶ 27 , 391 P.3d 1086 , 1096–97 (Wyo. 2017) (cautioning restraint when courts are asked to recognize new fundamental rights). 3 We discuss whether Appellants’ status as taxpayers creates standing below. 6 [¶15] We have cautioned against such conclusory allegations in attempting to establish the first element of the Brimmer test: In Appellants’ brief, they again argue passionately about the importance of separation of powers, but say little about a tangible interest that has been harmed.

2025See Vaughn v. State, 2017 WY 29, ¶ 27 , 391 P.3d 1086 , 1096–97 (Wyo. 2017) (cautioning restraint when courts are asked to recognize new fundamental rights). 3 We discuss whether Appellants’ status as taxpayers creates standing below. 6 [¶15] We have cautioned against such conclusory allegations in attempting to establish the first element of the Brimmer test: In Appellants’ brief, they again argue passionately about the importance of separation of powers, but say little about a tangible interest that has been harmed.

11
Colyer v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP.green
wyo · 2009 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020For purposes of the Brimmer test, it is enough that the parties agree one exists. 4 the OAH decision); Colyer v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 2009 WY 43, ¶ 26 , 203 P.3d 1104, 1111 (Wyo. 2009) (upholding the Implied Consent Suspension and affirming the OAH’s decision). [¶12] Escarcega, Regan, and Walters required a separate declaratory judgment action because they challenged the constitutionality of a statute.

2020For purposes of the Brimmer test, it is enough that the parties agree one exists. 4 the OAH decision); Colyer v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 2009 WY 43, ¶ 26 , 203 P.3d 1104, 1111 (Wyo. 2009) (upholding the Implied Consent Suspension and affirming the OAH’s decision). [¶12] Escarcega, Regan, and Walters required a separate declaratory judgment action because they challenged the constitutionality of a statute.

11
White v. Board of Land Commissionersgreen
wyo · 1979 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
2 sentences

2018In 1979, we held that the Board of Land Commissioners did not have standing for a declaratory judgment on its decision giving state land lessees the right to meet the highest bid and acquire state land, because “there was no guarantee the Whites would exei’cise their right to meet the highest bid after public auction.” William F. West Ranch, 2009 WY 62, ¶ 13 , 206 P.3d at 728 (citing White v. Bd. of Land Comm’rs, 595 P.2d 76, 80 (Wyo. 1979)).

2018In 1979, we held that the Board of Land Commissioners did not have standing for a declaratory judgment on its decision giving state land lessees the right to meet the highest bid and acquire state land, because “there was no guarantee the Whites would exei’cise their right to meet the highest bid after public auction.” William F. West Ranch, 2009 WY 62, ¶ 13 , 206 P.3d at 728 (citing White v. Bd. of Land Comm’rs, 595 P.2d 76, 80 (Wyo. 1979)).

11
State ex rel. Curvey v. Masongreen
or · 1981 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017Thus, the second element of the Brimmer test is unmet and we need not consider the remaining elements to conclude that Mr. Leavitt has not presented a justicia-ble controversy. 4 See The Tavern, LLC, 2017 WY 56, ¶ 26 , 395 P.3d at 174 ; Brimmer, 621 P.2d at 578.

2017Thus, the second element of the Brimmer test is unmet and we need not consider the remaining elements to conclude that Mr. Leavitt has not presented a justicia-ble controversy. 4 See The Tavern, LLC, 2017 WY 56, ¶ 26 , 395 P.3d at 174 ; Brimmer, 621 P.2d at 578.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

CaseCitedYears
HB Family Limited Partnership, a Wyoming limited partnership Robbin D. Mommsen, Trustee of the Robbin D. Mommsen Trust dated May 29, 2002, as amended Reynolds Pomeroy, II and Bettie B. Pomeroy, Trustees of the Pomeroy Revocable Trust dated November 15, 2017, as amended Howard G. Hardeman and Elizabeth J. Hardeman, individually and as Trustees of the Elizabeth J. Hardeman Trust The Hardeman Revocable Trust dated March 15, 2016, as amended, by Scott Hardeman and Stephanie Hardeman, Trustees Gayle Hardeman Decker and David R. Decker Deborah J. Hardeman Christine M. Coleman, as Trustee of the Christine M. Coleman Wyoming QPRT II dated January 2011 William Murray and Michael N. Christodolou and Kathleen A. Christodolou v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners and Teton Raptor Center green
wyo · 2020
2 sentences

2022HB, ¶¶ 15–19, 468 P.3d at 1087–88. 18 [¶53] The language of Wyo.

2022HB, ¶¶ 15–19, 468 P.3d at 1087–88. 18 [¶53] The language of Wyo.

22022–2022
The Tavern, LLC, and SALL, LLC v. The Town of Alpine, Wyoming, and Nelson Engineering, a Wyoming Corporation green
wyo · 2017
2 sentences

2022We have explained that the concept of standing in the declaratory judgment context requires a person to “show a ‘perceptible,’ rather than a ‘speculative’ harm from the action; a remote possibility of injury is not sufficient to confer standing.” The Tavern, LLC, ¶ 33, 395 P.3d at 176 (quoting Carnahan, ¶ 26, 273 P.3d at 1073 ). [¶10] To establish a justiciable controversy under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, we apply the four-part Brimmer test.

2022We have explained that the concept of standing in the declaratory judgment context requires a person to “show a ‘perceptible,’ rather than a ‘speculative’ harm from the action; a remote possibility of injury is not sufficient to confer standing.” The Tavern, LLC, ¶ 33, 395 P.3d at 176 (quoting Carnahan, ¶ 26, 273 P.3d at 1073 ). [¶10] To establish a justiciable controversy under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, we apply the four-part Brimmer test.

22017–2022
Washakie County School District Number One v. Herschler green
wyo · 1980
2 sentences

2018Id. at 317 . [¶46] In Wyoming Association of .Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors v. Sullivan, the Court did dispense with an analysis of the Brimmer factors because “the issue of whether the Wyoming Professional Review Panel Act is constitutional is of great, public importance and, therefore, merits a decision from this Court.” 798 P.2d at 829 ..As discussed, see supra ¶ 40, we have retreated from such a broad application of the public interest to standing analysis.

2018Id. at 317 . [¶46] In Wyoming Association of .Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors v. Sullivan, the Court did dispense with an analysis of the Brimmer factors because “the issue of whether the Wyoming Professional Review Panel Act is constitutional is of great, public importance and, therefore, merits a decision from this Court.” 798 P.2d at 829 ..As discussed, see supra ¶ 40, we have retreated from such a broad application of the public interest to standing analysis.

22001–2018
Carnahan v. Lewis green
wyo · 2012
2 sentences

2022We have explained that the concept of standing in the declaratory judgment context requires a person to “show a ‘perceptible,’ rather than a ‘speculative’ harm from the action; a remote possibility of injury is not sufficient to confer standing.” The Tavern, LLC, ¶ 33, 395 P.3d at 176 (quoting Carnahan, ¶ 26, 273 P.3d at 1073 ). [¶10] To establish a justiciable controversy under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, we apply the four-part Brimmer test.

2022We have explained that the concept of standing in the declaratory judgment context requires a person to “show a ‘perceptible,’ rather than a ‘speculative’ harm from the action; a remote possibility of injury is not sufficient to confer standing.” The Tavern, LLC, ¶ 33, 395 P.3d at 176 (quoting Carnahan, ¶ 26, 273 P.3d at 1073 ). [¶10] To establish a justiciable controversy under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, we apply the four-part Brimmer test.

12022–2022
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 green
wyo · 2022
2 sentences

2022Forbes, 2022 WY 59, ¶ 33 , 509 P.3d at 898.

2022Forbes, 2022 WY 59, ¶ 33 , 509 P.3d at 898.

12022–2022
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment green
scotus · 1998
2 sentences

2022Statutory standing, on the other hand, “looks to whether ‘this plaintiff has a cause of action under [the subject] statute.”’ Stanford, ¶ 11, 448 P.3d at 864 (quoting In re L- MHB, ¶ 20, 431 P.3d at 56 (Wyo. 2018), and Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 , 97 n.2, 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 1013 n.2, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)).

2022Statutory standing, on the other hand, “looks to whether ‘this plaintiff has a cause of action under [the subject] statute.”’ Stanford, ¶ 11, 448 P.3d at 864 (quoting In re L- MHB, ¶ 20, 431 P.3d at 56 (Wyo. 2018), and Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 , 97 n.2, 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 1013 n.2, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)).

12022–2022
Leavitt v. State, ex rel., Wyoming Department of Transportation green
wyo · 2017
2 sentences

2020Leavitt, ¶ 7, 406 P.3d at 1269 (quoting Maxfield v. State, 2013 WY 14, ¶ 20 , 294 P.3d 895, 900 (Wyo. 2013)).

2020Leavitt, ¶ 7, 406 P.3d at 1269 (quoting Maxfield v. State, 2013 WY 14, ¶ 20 , 294 P.3d 895, 900 (Wyo. 2013)).

12020–2020
Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Ass'n v. State green
wyo · 1982
2 sentences

2020Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Ass’n, 645 P.2d at 1168 . [¶51] To establish a justiciable controversy under the Declaratory Judgments Act, the four-factor Brimmer test must be met.

2020Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Ass’n, 645 P.2d at 1168 . [¶51] To establish a justiciable controversy under the Declaratory Judgments Act, the four-factor Brimmer test must be met.

12020–2020
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. green
scotus · 2014
2 sentences

2019L-MHB, ¶ 19, 431 P.3d at 567 (quoting Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 126 , 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1386 , 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014)). [¶10] Wyoming’s prudential standing test, known as the Brimmer test, incorporates these same general principles.

2019L-MHB, ¶ 19, 431 P.3d at 567 (quoting Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 126 , 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1386 , 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014)). [¶10] Wyoming’s prudential standing test, known as the Brimmer test, incorporates these same general principles.

12019–2019
Sorenson v. City of Bellingham green
wash · 1972
2 sentences

2018Id. [¶38] Our analysis and application of the Brimmer factors have not always been consistent.

2018Id. [¶38] Our analysis and application of the Brimmer factors have not always been consistent.

12018–2018
State Ex Rel. Wyoming Ass'n of Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors v. Sullivan green
wyo · 1990
2 sentences

2018Id. at 317 . [¶46] In Wyoming Association of .Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors v. Sullivan, the Court did dispense with an analysis of the Brimmer factors because “the issue of whether the Wyoming Professional Review Panel Act is constitutional is of great, public importance and, therefore, merits a decision from this Court.” 798 P.2d at 829 ..As discussed, see supra ¶ 40, we have retreated from such a broad application of the public interest to standing analysis.

2018Id. at 317 . [¶46] In Wyoming Association of .Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors v. Sullivan, the Court did dispense with an analysis of the Brimmer factors because “the issue of whether the Wyoming Professional Review Panel Act is constitutional is of great, public importance and, therefore, merits a decision from this Court.” 798 P.2d at 829 ..As discussed, see supra ¶ 40, we have retreated from such a broad application of the public interest to standing analysis.

12018–2018
Village Road Coalition v. Teton County Housing Authority green
wyo · 2013
2 sentences

2018“The first two elements of the Brimmer test are inextricably linked: if a plaintiff fails to allege that an interest has been harmed, a judicial decision cannot remedy a nonexistent harm.” Village Road Coalition, 2013 WY 38, ¶ 16 , 298 P.3d at 169 .

2018“The first two elements of the Brimmer test are inextricably linked: if a plaintiff fails to allege that an interest has been harmed, a judicial decision cannot remedy a nonexistent harm.” Village Road Coalition, 2013 WY 38, ¶ 16 , 298 P.3d at 169 .

12018–2018
Reiman Corp. v. City of Cheyenne green
wyo · 1992
2 sentences

2009In other words, the "court's decision must have some practical effect upon the litigants." *732 Reiman, 838 P.2d at 1187 .

2009In other words, the "court's decision must have some practical effect upon the litigants." *732 Reiman, 838 P.2d at 1187 .

12009–2009

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WY § Wyo. Stat. § 1-37-103 (8) WY § Wyo. Stat. § 1-37-102 (4) WY § Wyo. Stat. § 1-37-101 (3) WY § Wyo. Stat. § 5-1-106 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check