res judicata doctrine in Wyoming

2025See Hicks v. State, 2018 WY 15, ¶ 15 , 409 P.3d 1256, 1259 (Wyo. 2018) (“We have recognized that application of the res judicata bar to a claim is discretionary, and we will not apply the bar if good cause is shown for the defendant’s failure to raise his claim in prior proceedings.” (citing Goetzel I, ¶ 10, 406 P.3d at 312 ; Nicodemus, ¶ 12, 392 P.3d at 411–12)); Ferguson, ¶ 11, 309 P.3d at 834 (“If a party fails to show good cause why an issue was not raised at an earlier opportunity, the Court may decline to consider the issue.” (citing Hamill v. State, 948 P.2d 1356, 1358 (Wyo. 1997))).

2007Although the district court appears to have decided these motions on their merits, we refuse to continue down this course as Wyoming law mandates that all of Martinez's challenges to the legality of his sentences filed subsequent to his first motion to correct an illegal sentence should have been barred by the doctrine of res judicata. [¶ 14] In Hamill v. State, 948 P.2d 1356 (Wyo.1997), the defendant filed a petition to vacate or set aside an illegal sentence asserting that his sentence: 1) violated the United *92 States and Wyoming Constitutions; 2) was based on erroneous information regardi

2025District courts cannot reopen existing custody orders until the moving party establishes a “material change of circumstances which outweigh society’s interest in applying the doctrine of res judicata[.]” In re TLJ, 2006 WY 28, ¶ 8 , 129 P.3d 874, 876 (quoting Kreuter v. Kreuter, 728 P.2d 1129, 1130 (Wyo. 1986)).

2015Section 20-2-204(c) states, in pertinent part: A court having jurisdiction may modify an order concerning the care, custody and visitation of the children if there is a showing by either parent of a material change in circumstances since the entry of the order in question and that the modification would be in the best interests of the children pursuant to W.S. 20-2-201(a).[4] [¶14] Accordingly, a district court cannot reopen an existing custody order until the moving party establishes a “material change of circumstances which outweigh society’s interest in applying the doctrine of res judicata

2025Id., ¶ 10, ___ P.3d at ___; see also Mead v. State, 2 P.3d 564, 565-66 (Wyo. 2000) (holding res judicata barred appellant from claiming, in his appeal from a denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, the district court erred in an earlier order revoking his probation). [¶11] Daniels v. State, 909 P.2d 972 (Wyo. 1996), is an example of a case where we ruled res judicata bars a defendant from arguing his conviction or sentence was improper in a subsequent probation revocation proceeding.

2003"The issue ... could have been raised in that appeal, but it was not.... [Wie ground our decision in this case on the doctrine of res judicata, and we hold that this Court is foreclosed from considering Mead's appeal on its merits." Id. [114] Unlike the defendants in Homill and Mead, Mr. Lacey did challenge his sentences in his direct appeal: Appellant's final argument challenges the propriety of the district court's decision to increase both aggravated assault and battery sentences to greater amounts of time than provided for by statute as a result of the jury finding him to be a habitual cri

2002“It is a long-standing rule of law that issues that could have been raised on appeal are not open to challenge by a petition for post-conviction relief because they are foreclosed by the doctrine of res judicata.” Kallas v. State, 776 P.2d 198,199 (Wyo.1989) (citing Cutbirth v. State, 751 P.2d 1257, 1261 (Wyo.1988)).

1991Those issues which could have been presented on appeal are not open to *74 challenge by a motion for post-conviction relief because they are foreclosed by the doctrine of res judicata." Cutbirth v. State, 751 P.2d 1257, 1261 (Wyo. 1988) (citations omitted).

2009See Mentock v. Mentock, 638 P.2d 156 (Wyo.1981) (change in cireumstances must be material enough to outweigh society's interest in applying the doctrine of res judicata) See also CLH, 2006 WY 28 , 129 P.3d 874 ; Jackson v. Jackson, 2004 WY 99 , 96 P.3d 21 (Wyo.2004); Roberts v. Vilos, 776 P.2d 216 (Wyo.1989); Kreuter v. Kreuter, 728 P.2d 1129 (Wyo.1986).

1992Beyond that, in order for a modification of.divorce decree to be warranted, “it must be established that there has been a material or substantial change of circumstances which outweighs society’s interest in applying the doctrine of res judicata.” Mentock v. Mentock, 638 P.2d 156, 158 (Wyo.1981); See also Manners v. Manners, 706 P.2d 671 (Wyo.1985).

2006In the case of Osborn v. Manning, 798 P.2d 1208, 1210 (Wyo.1990), we summarized the doctrine of res judicata: The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel "incorporate a universal precept of common-law jurisprudence to the ef-feet that 'a right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction ... cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies." Rialto Theatre, Inc. v. Commonwealth Theatres, Inc., 714 P.2d 328, 336 (Wyo.1986) (quoting Delgue v. Curutchet, 677 P.2d 208, 213 (Wyo.1984)).

1996In the case of Osborn v. Manning, 798 P.2d 1208, 1210 (Wyo.1990), we summarized the doctrine of res judicata: The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel “incorporate a universal precept of common-law jurisprudence to the effect that a ‘right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction ... cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies.’ ” Rialto Theatre, Inc. v. Commonwealth Theatres, Inc., 714 P.2d 328, 336 (Wyo.1986) (quoting Delgue v. Curutchet, 677 P.2d 208, 213 (Wyo.1984)).

2023“The doctrine of res judicata bars litigation of issues that were or could have been determined in a prior proceeding.” Dax v. State, 2012 WY 40, ¶ 9 , 272 P.3d 319, 321 (Wyo. 2012) (citing Martinez v. State, 2007 WY 164, ¶ 15 , 169 P.3d 89, 92 (Wyo. 2007)). “[C]laims brought pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) are subject to the principles of res judicata.” Id. ¶ 10, 272 P.3d at 321 (quoting Cooper v. State, 2010 WY 22, ¶ 6 , 225 P.3d 1070, 1072 (Wyo. 2010)). “[O]ur rulings make clear that the application of the doctrine [of res judicata] is discretionary.” Palmer v. State, 2016 WY 46, ¶ 7 , 371 P.3d

2023“The doctrine of res judicata bars litigation of issues that were or could have been determined in a prior proceeding.” Dax v. State, 2012 WY 40, ¶ 9 , 272 P.3d 319, 321 (Wyo. 2012) (citing Martinez v. State, 2007 WY 164, ¶ 15 , 169 P.3d 89, 92 (Wyo. 2007)). “[C]laims brought pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) are subject to the principles of res judicata.” Id. ¶ 10, 272 P.3d at 321 (quoting Cooper v. State, 2010 WY 22, ¶ 6 , 225 P.3d 1070, 1072 (Wyo. 2010)). “[O]ur rulings make clear that the application of the doctrine [of res judicata] is discretionary.” Palmer v. State, 2016 WY 46, ¶ 7 , 371 P.3d

2023“Under the doctrine of res judicata, ‘it is a longstanding rule that issues which could have been raised in an earlier proceeding are foreclosed from subsequent consideration.’” Id. (quoting Gould v. State, 2006 WY 157, ¶ 15 , 151 P.3d 261, 266 (Wyo. 2006)).

2023“Under the doctrine of res judicata, ‘it is a longstanding rule that issues which could have been raised in an earlier proceeding are foreclosed from subsequent consideration.’” Id. (quoting Gould v. State, 2006 WY 157, ¶ 15 , 151 P.3d 261, 266 (Wyo. 2006)).

2018Moore , ¶ 20, 215 P.3d at 276 (quoting Lacey v. State , 2003 WY 148 , ¶ 11, 79 P.3d 493 , 495 (Wyo. 2003) ).

2018Moore , ¶ 20, 215 P.3d at 276 (quoting Lacey v. State , 2003 WY 148 , ¶ 11, 79 P.3d 493 , 495 (Wyo. 2003) ).

1991The doctrine of res judicata "`constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.'" Osborn v. Manning, 798 P.2d 1208, 1210 (Wyo. 1990) (quoting Barrett v. Town of Guernsey, 652 P.2d 395, 398 (Wyo. 1982)).

1991The doctrine of res judicata “ ‘constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.’ ” Osborn v. Manning, 798 P.2d 1208, 1210 (Wyo.1990) (quoting Barrett v. Town of Guernsey, 652 P.2d 395, 398 (Wyo.1982)).

2003Id., Pinther v. Pinther, 888 P.2d 1250, 1253 (Wyo.1995), Nuspl v. Nuspl, 717 P.2d 341, 345 (Wyo.1986); see also W.S. 20-6-306(a). 2 The district court's decision to modify a divorce decree is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

1999Clark v. Alexander, 953 P.2d 145, 150 (Wyo.1998); Goody v. Goody, 939 P.2d 731, 733 (Wyo.1997); Sender v. Sender, 924 P.2d 422, 424 (Wyo.1996); Pinther v. Pinther, 888 P.2d 1250, 1253 (Wyo.1995); Nuspl v. Nuspl, 717 P.2d 341, 345 (Wyo.1986).

2025“The purposes of the res judicata doctrine are to promote judicial economy and finality, prevent repetitive litigation, prevent inconsistent results, and increase certainty in judgments.” Taulo-Millar v. Hognason, 2022 WY 8, ¶ 45 , 501 P.3d 1274 , 1287 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting McBride-Kramer v. Kramer, 2019 WY 10 , ¶ 23, 433 P.3d 529, 535 (Wyo. 2019)).

2023“The purposes of the res judicata doctrine are to promote judicial economy and finality, prevent repetitive litigation, prevent inconsistent results, and increase certainty in judgments.” Taulo-Millar v. Hognason, 2022 WY 8, ¶ 45 , 501 P.3d 1274 , 1287 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting McBride-Kramer v. Kramer, 2019 WY 10 , ¶ 23, 433 P.3d 529, 535 (Wyo. 2019)).

2006In the case of Osborn v. Manning, 798 P.2d 1208, 1210 (Wyo.1990), we summarized the doctrine of res judicata: The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel "incorporate a universal precept of common-law jurisprudence to the ef-feet that 'a right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction ... cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies." Rialto Theatre, Inc. v. Commonwealth Theatres, Inc., 714 P.2d 328, 336 (Wyo.1986) (quoting Delgue v. Curutchet, 677 P.2d 208, 213 (Wyo.1984)).

1996In the case of Osborn v. Manning, 798 P.2d 1208, 1210 (Wyo.1990), we summarized the doctrine of res judicata: The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel “incorporate a universal precept of common-law jurisprudence to the effect that a ‘right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction ... cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies.’ ” Rialto Theatre, Inc. v. Commonwealth Theatres, Inc., 714 P.2d 328, 336 (Wyo.1986) (quoting Delgue v. Curutchet, 677 P.2d 208, 213 (Wyo.1984)).

2006In the case of Osborn v. Manning, 798 P.2d 1208, 1210 (Wyo.1990), we summarized the doctrine of res judicata: The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel "incorporate a universal precept of common-law jurisprudence to the ef-feet that 'a right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction ... cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies." Rialto Theatre, Inc. v. Commonwealth Theatres, Inc., 714 P.2d 328, 336 (Wyo.1986) (quoting Delgue v. Curutchet, 677 P.2d 208, 213 (Wyo.1984)).

1996In the case of Osborn v. Manning, 798 P.2d 1208, 1210 (Wyo.1990), we summarized the doctrine of res judicata: The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel “incorporate a universal precept of common-law jurisprudence to the effect that a ‘right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction ... cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies.’ ” Rialto Theatre, Inc. v. Commonwealth Theatres, Inc., 714 P.2d 328, 336 (Wyo.1986) (quoting Delgue v. Curutchet, 677 P.2d 208, 213 (Wyo.1984)).

2003Id., Pinther v. Pinther, 888 P.2d 1250, 1253 (Wyo.1995), Nuspl v. Nuspl, 717 P.2d 341, 345 (Wyo.1986); see also W.S. 20-6-306(a). 2 The district court's decision to modify a divorce decree is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

1999Clark v. Alexander, 953 P.2d 145, 150 (Wyo.1998); Goody v. Goody, 939 P.2d 731, 733 (Wyo.1997); Sender v. Sender, 924 P.2d 422, 424 (Wyo.1996); Pinther v. Pinther, 888 P.2d 1250, 1253 (Wyo.1995); Nuspl v. Nuspl, 717 P.2d 341, 345 (Wyo.1986).

2025See Hicks v. State, 2018 WY 15, ¶ 15 , 409 P.3d 1256, 1259 (Wyo. 2018) (“We have recognized that application of the res judicata bar to a claim is discretionary, and we will not apply the bar if good cause is shown for the defendant’s failure to raise his claim in prior proceedings.” (citing Goetzel I, ¶ 10, 406 P.3d at 312 ; Nicodemus, ¶ 12, 392 P.3d at 411–12)); Ferguson, ¶ 11, 309 P.3d at 834 (“If a party fails to show good cause why an issue was not raised at an earlier opportunity, the Court may decline to consider the issue.” (citing Hamill v. State, 948 P.2d 1356, 1358 (Wyo. 1997))).

2022Generally, “[w]e have recognized that application of the res judicata bar to a claim is discretionary, and we will not apply the bar if good cause is shown for the defendant’s failure to raise his claim in prior proceedings.” Hicks v. State, 2018 WY 15, ¶ 15 , 409 P.3d 1256, 1259 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Goetzel I, ¶ 10, 406 P.3d at 312 ; Nicodemus, ¶ 12, 392 P.3d at 411–12).

2019The doctrine arises through public policy and necessity, it being in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation." Poignee , ¶ 12, 369 P.3d at 518 (quoting Rubeling v. Rubeling , 406 P.2d 283 , 284 (Wyo. 1965) (citing 50 C.J.S.

2016The "doctrine of res judicata is a rule of universal law pervading every well-regulated system of jurisprudence, The doctrine arises through public policy and necessity, it being in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation." Rubeling v. Rubeling, 406 P.2d 283, 284 (Wyo.1965), citing 50 C.J.S8.

2025District courts cannot reopen existing custody orders until the moving party establishes a “material change of circumstances which outweigh society’s interest in applying the doctrine of res judicata[.]” In re TLJ, 2006 WY 28, ¶ 8 , 129 P.3d 874, 876 (quoting Kreuter v. Kreuter, 728 P.2d 1129, 1130 (Wyo. 1986)).

2025District courts cannot reopen existing custody orders until the moving party establishes a “material change of circumstances which outweigh society’s interest in applying the doctrine of res judicata[.]” In re TLJ, 2006 WY 28, ¶ 8 , 129 P.3d 874, 876 (quoting Kreuter v. Kreuter, 728 P.2d 1129, 1130 (Wyo. 1986)).

2018We do agree with the State, however, that Mr. Hicks’ double jeopardy claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and on that basis, we affirm the district court’s ruling. [¶12] “fíes judicata bars litigation of issues that were or could have been determined in a prior proceeding.” Nicodemus, ¶ 11, 392 P.3d at 411 (citing Bird v. State, 2015 WY 108, ¶ 10 , 356 P.3d 264, 267 (Wyo. 2015)).

2018We do agree with the State, however, that Mr. Hicks’ double jeopardy claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and on that basis, we affirm the district court’s ruling. [¶12] “fíes judicata bars litigation of issues that were or could have been determined in a prior proceeding.” Nicodemus, ¶ 11, 392 P.3d at 411 (citing Bird v. State, 2015 WY 108, ¶ 10 , 356 P.3d 264, 267 (Wyo. 2015)).

2023“The doctrine of res judicata bars litigation of issues that were or could have been determined in a prior proceeding.” Dax v. State, 2012 WY 40, ¶ 9 , 272 P.3d 319, 321 (Wyo. 2012) (citing Martinez v. State, 2007 WY 164, ¶ 15 , 169 P.3d 89, 92 (Wyo. 2007)). “[C]laims brought pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) are subject to the principles of res judicata.” Id. ¶ 10, 272 P.3d at 321 (quoting Cooper v. State, 2010 WY 22, ¶ 6 , 225 P.3d 1070, 1072 (Wyo. 2010)). “[O]ur rulings make clear that the application of the doctrine [of res judicata] is discretionary.” Palmer v. State, 2016 WY 46, ¶ 7 , 371 P.3d

2023“The doctrine of res judicata bars litigation of issues that were or could have been determined in a prior proceeding.” Dax v. State, 2012 WY 40, ¶ 9 , 272 P.3d 319, 321 (Wyo. 2012) (citing Martinez v. State, 2007 WY 164, ¶ 15 , 169 P.3d 89, 92 (Wyo. 2007)). “[C]laims brought pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) are subject to the principles of res judicata.” Id. ¶ 10, 272 P.3d at 321 (quoting Cooper v. State, 2010 WY 22, ¶ 6 , 225 P.3d 1070, 1072 (Wyo. 2010)). “[O]ur rulings make clear that the application of the doctrine [of res judicata] is discretionary.” Palmer v. State, 2016 WY 46, ¶ 7 , 371 P.3d

2013The doctrine of res judicata "is a longstanding rule that issues which could have been raised in an earlier proceeding are foreclosed from subsequent consideration." Moore v. State, 2009 WY 108, ¶ 20 , 215 P.3d 271, 276 (Wyo.2009) (quoting Gould v. State, 2006 WY 157, ¶ 15 , 151 P.3d 261, 266 (Wyo0.2006)) (emphasis in original).

2013The doctrine of res judicata "is a longstanding rule that issues which could have been raised in an earlier proceeding are foreclosed from subsequent consideration." Moore v. State, 2009 WY 108, ¶ 20 , 215 P.3d 271, 276 (Wyo.2009) (quoting Gould v. State, 2006 WY 157, ¶ 15 , 151 P.3d 261, 266 (Wyo0.2006)) (emphasis in original).

2003Id., Pinther v. Pinther, 888 P.2d 1250, 1253 (Wyo.1995), Nuspl v. Nuspl, 717 P.2d 341, 345 (Wyo.1986); see also W.S. 20-6-306(a). 2 The district court's decision to modify a divorce decree is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

1997Smith v. Smith, 895 P.2d 37, 41 (Wyo.1995); Pin ther v. Pinther, 888 P.2d 1250, 1253 (Wyo.1995); Nuspl v. Nuspl, 717 P.2d 341, 345 (Wyo.1986); see also W.S. 20-6-306(a).

2011Id.

2011Id.

1995Wright v. State, Wyo., 718 P.2d 35 (1986); Hoggatt v. State, supra. Those issues which could have been presented on appeal are not open to challenge by a motion for post-conviction relief because they are foreclosed by the doctrine of res judicata.

1989Wright v. State, Wyo., 718 P.2d 35 (1986); Hoggatt v. State, supra. Those issues which could have been presented on appeal are not open to challenge by a motion for post-conviction relief because they are foreclosed by the doctrine of res judicata.

2025See Hicks v. State, 2018 WY 15, ¶ 15 , 409 P.3d 1256, 1259 (Wyo. 2018) (“We have recognized that application of the res judicata bar to a claim is discretionary, and we will not apply the bar if good cause is shown for the defendant’s failure to raise his claim in prior proceedings.” (citing Goetzel I, ¶ 10, 406 P.3d at 312 ; Nicodemus, ¶ 12, 392 P.3d at 411–12)); Ferguson, ¶ 11, 309 P.3d at 834 (“If a party fails to show good cause why an issue was not raised at an earlier opportunity, the Court may decline to consider the issue.” (citing Hamill v. State, 948 P.2d 1356, 1358 (Wyo. 1997))).

2022Generally, “[w]e have recognized that application of the res judicata bar to a claim is discretionary, and we will not apply the bar if good cause is shown for the defendant’s failure to raise his claim in prior proceedings.” Hicks v. State, 2018 WY 15, ¶ 15 , 409 P.3d 1256, 1259 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Goetzel I, ¶ 10, 406 P.3d at 312 ; Nicodemus, ¶ 12, 392 P.3d at 411–12).

2006Pauling v. Pauling, 837 P.2d 1073 (Wyo.1992); Crawford v. Crawford, 828 P.2d 1192 (Wyo.1992); Dorr v. Newman, 785 P.2d 1172 (Wyo.1990); Mentock v. Mentock, 638 P.2d 156 (Wyo.1981).

2004Ready v. Ready, at ¶ 11; Pasenelli v. Pasenelli, 2002 WY 159, ¶9 , 57 P.3d 324, ¶9 (Wyo.2002); Crawford v. Crawford, 828 P.2d 1192, 1194 (Wyo.1992); Mentock v. Mentock, 638 P.2d 156, 158 (Wyo.1981).

2025“The purposes of the res judicata doctrine are to promote judicial economy and finality, prevent repetitive litigation, prevent inconsistent results, and increase certainty in judgments.” Taulo-Millar v. Hognason, 2022 WY 8, ¶ 45 , 501 P.3d 1274 , 1287 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting McBride-Kramer v. Kramer, 2019 WY 10 , ¶ 23, 433 P.3d 529, 535 (Wyo. 2019)).

2025“The purposes of the res judicata doctrine are to promote judicial economy and finality, prevent repetitive litigation, prevent inconsistent results, and increase certainty in judgments.” Bernard v. State, 2025 WY 66, ¶ 9 , ___ P.3d ___, ___ (Wyo. 2025) (quoting Taulo-Millar v. Hognason, 2022 WY 8, ¶ 45 , 501 P.3d 1274 , 1287 (Wyo. 2022)). [¶9] The determination of whether a claim is barred by res judicata is a question of law, reviewed de novo.