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.
16 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leeper v. Stategreen2 sentences2021DISCUSSION [¶26] At common law, defense of another incorporated the “alter ego rule,” which provides that “[o]ne asserting the justification of defense of another steps into the position of the person defended.” Starr v. State, 2017 WY 61, ¶ 11 , 395 P.3d 180, 183 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Leeper v. State, 589 P.2d 379, 383 (Wyo. 1979)). 2017We recognized the common-law defense of “defense of others” decades ago in Leeper v. State, 589 P.2d 379, 383 (Wyo. 1979): One asserting the justification of defense of another steps into the position of the person defended. | 4 | 4 |
K N Energy, Inc. v. City of Caspergreen2 sentences2002Baker, 960 P.2d at 1018 (citing City of Green River, 816 P.2d at 1290 ; and K N Energy, Inc. v. City of Casper, 755 P.2d 207, 210 (Wyo.1988)). 1998City of Green River, 816 P.2d at 1290 ; K N Energy, Inc. v. City of Casper, 755 P.2d 207, 210 (Wyo.1988). | 2 | 2 |
Powers v. Stategreen1 sentence2024The separation of powers doctrine requires the courts “to give great deference to legislative pronouncements[.]” Gordon, ¶ 51, 413 P.3d at 1108 (quoting Powers v. State, 2014 WY 15, ¶ 7 , 318 P.3d 300, 303 (Wyo. 2014)). | 1 | 1 |
LISA ANN GRANT v. STATE OF FLORIDAgreen1 sentence2021Bendinelli, supra, at 174; see also Grant v. State, 266 So.3d 203, 207 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Darrin Lee Starr v. Stategreen2 sentences2021DISCUSSION [¶26] At common law, defense of another incorporated the “alter ego rule,” which provides that “[o]ne asserting the justification of defense of another steps into the position of the person defended.” Starr v. State, 2017 WY 61, ¶ 11 , 395 P.3d 180, 183 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Leeper v. State, 589 P.2d 379, 383 (Wyo. 1979)). 2021DISCUSSION [¶26] At common law, defense of another incorporated the “alter ego rule,” which provides that “[o]ne asserting the justification of defense of another steps into the position of the person defended.” Starr v. State, 2017 WY 61, ¶ 11 , 395 P.3d 180, 183 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Leeper v. State, 589 P.2d 379, 383 (Wyo. 1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Hageman Ex Rel. C v. Goshen County School District No. 1green2 sentences2017No. 1, 2011 WY 91, ¶ 9 , 256 P.3d 487, 492 (Wyo. 2011). [1111] A large majority of jurisdictions have determined that self-defense is not available to a defendant who initiates the underlying felony supporting a charge of felony murder: [I]n the vast majority of situations, a defendant charged with felony murder is precluded as a matter of law from relying on a justification defense since, having created a potentially life threatening situation, the defendant forfeits the right to use deadly physical force against the victim or any rescuer. 2017No. 1, 2011 WY 91, ¶ 9 , 256 P.3d 487, 492 (Wyo. 2011). [1111] A large majority of jurisdictions have determined that self-defense is not available to a defendant who initiates the underlying felony supporting a charge of felony murder: [I]n the vast majority of situations, a defendant charged with felony murder is precluded as a matter of law from relying on a justification defense since, having created a potentially life threatening situation, the defendant forfeits the right to use deadly physical force against the victim or any rescuer. | 1 | 1 |
Oatts v. Jorgensongreen1 sentence2006“The justification for the rule foreclosing appellate consideration is that it is unfair to reverse a ruling of a trial court for reasons that were not presented to it, whether it be legal theories or issues never formally raised in the pleadings nor argued to the trial court.” Oatts v. Jorgenson, 821 P.2d 108, 111 (Wyo.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Zancanelli v. Central Coal & Coke Co.green2 sentences1998Baker v. Wendy’s of Montana, Inc., 687 P.2d 885, 888 (Wyo.1984); Zancanelli v. Central Coal & Coke Co., 25 Wyo. 511 , 173 P. 981, 989 (Wyo.1918). 1998Baker v. Wendy’s of Montana, Inc., 687 P.2d 885, 888 (Wyo.1984); Zancanelli v. Central Coal & Coke Co., 25 Wyo. 511 , 173 P. 981, 989 (Wyo.1918). | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Wendy's of Montana, Inc.green1 sentence1998Baker v. Wendy’s of Montana, Inc., 687 P.2d 885, 888 (Wyo.1984); Zancanelli v. Central Coal & Coke Co., 25 Wyo. 511 , 173 P. 981, 989 (Wyo.1918). | 1 | 1 |
Witt v. Stategreen1 sentence1997This rule, as stated in Wilson , was followed in Witt v. State, 892 P.2d 132, 140 (Wyo.1995). | 1 | 1 |
MacY v. MacYgreen1 sentence1989See Macy v. Macy, 714 P.2d 774 (Wyo.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Baker v. Strange
green
2 sentences2024“The justification for this rule of law is that [local governments] have no sovereignty independent from that of the state, and the only power available to them is the power that has been delegated to them by the state.” Ahearn, ¶ 14, 39 P.3d at 416 (citing Baker, 960 P.2d at 1018 ). 10 legislative acts under the WAPA must take into account separation of powers and is more limited than review of non-legislative agency action. 2002Baker, 960 P.2d at 1018 (citing City of Green River, 816 P.2d at 1290 ; and K N Energy, Inc. v. City of Casper, 755 P.2d 207, 210 (Wyo.1988)). | 2 | 2002–2024 |
City of Green River v. Debernardi Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2002Baker, 960 P.2d at 1018 (citing City of Green River, 816 P.2d at 1290 ; and K N Energy, Inc. v. City of Casper, 755 P.2d 207, 210 (Wyo.1988)). 1998City of Green River, 816 P.2d at 1290 ; K N Energy, Inc. v. City of Casper, 755 P.2d 207, 210 (Wyo.1988). | 2 | 1998–2002 |
Woodward v. Haney
green
2 sentences1981I view as the primary justification for the rule selected by the majority opinion the proposition espoused in Woodward v. Haney, Wyo., 564 P.2d 844 (1977), that á legislature is presumed to have adopted the construction placed upon a statute by the courts of the state from which the statute originated as of the time of its adoption. 1981I view as the primary justification for the rule selected by the majority opinion the proposition espoused in Woodward v. Haney, Wyo., 564 P.2d 844 (1977), that a legislature is presumed to have adopted the construction placed upon a statute by the courts of the state from which the statute originated as of the time of its adoption. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Gordon v. State
green
1 sentence2024The separation of powers doctrine requires the courts “to give great deference to legislative pronouncements[.]” Gordon, ¶ 51, 413 P.3d at 1108 (quoting Powers v. State, 2014 WY 15, ¶ 7 , 318 P.3d 300, 303 (Wyo. 2014)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ahearn v. Town of Wheatland
green
1 sentence2024“The justification for this rule of law is that [local governments] have no sovereignty independent from that of the state, and the only power available to them is the power that has been delegated to them by the state.” Ahearn, ¶ 14, 39 P.3d at 416 (citing Baker, 960 P.2d at 1018 ). 10 legislative acts under the WAPA must take into account separation of powers and is more limited than review of non-legislative agency action. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
cluster 2652434
green
1 sentence2024The separation of powers doctrine requires the courts “to give great deference to legislative pronouncements[.]” Gordon, ¶ 51, 413 P.3d at 1108 (quoting Powers v. State, 2014 WY 15, ¶ 7 , 318 P.3d 300, 303 (Wyo. 2014)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Wilson v. State
green
1 sentence1997In Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 218 (Wyo.1994), we summarized the justification for the rule: Since the district court conducts the hearing on the motion to suppress and has the opportunity to: assess the credibility of the witnesses; the weight given the evidence; and make the necessary inferences, deductions and conclusions, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the district court’s determination. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Cheatham v. State
green
2 sentences1986In Brewster v. State, supra, this court held that there can be no comment on the “silence following arrest.” In Cheatham v. State, Wyo., 719 P.2d 612 (1986), we explained the justification for the rule followed in Clenin v. State, supra, and Westmark v. State, supra. Essentially that rule is premised upon the proposition that once an accused has been advised of his constitutional right to silence whether he does not speak from that point on is an equivocal circumstance. 1986In Brewster v. State, supra, this court held that there can be no comment on the "silence following arrest." In Cheatham v. State, Wyo., 719 P.2d 612 (1986), we explained the justification for the rule followed in Clenin v. State, supra, and Westmark v. State, supra. Essentially that rule is premised upon the proposition that once an accused has been advised of his constitutional right to silence whether he does not speak from that point on is an equivocal circumstance. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Withrow v. Larkin
green
2 sentences1983The following analogies were cited by the Supreme Court in Withrow v. Larkin, supra, 421 U.S. at 56-57 , 95 S.Ct. at 1469 : "Judges repeatedly issue arrest warrants on the basis that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person named in the warrant has committed it. 1983The following analogies were cited by the Supreme Court in Withrow v. Larkin, supra, 421 U.S. at 56-57 , 95 S.Ct. at 1469 : "Judges repeatedly issue arrest warrants on the basis that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person named in the warrant has committed it. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.