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.
14 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cazier v. Stategreen2 sentences2017We find plain error only when: “(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Griggs v. State, 2016 WY 16, ¶ 81 , 367 P.3d 1108, 1132-33 (Wyo. 2016), quoting Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 10 , 148 P.3d 23, 28 (Wyo. 2006) (some citations omitted). [¶26] The record contains the relevant instructions. 2017We find plain error only when: “(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Griggs v. State, 2016 WY 16, ¶ 81 , 367 P.3d 1108, 1132-33 (Wyo. 2016), quoting Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 10 , 148 P.3d 23, 28 (Wyo. 2006) (some citations omitted). [¶26] The record contains the relevant instructions. | 5 | 5 |
Byron Nelson Griggs v. Stategreen2 sentences2019As often stated, plain error exists when: "(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation *818 of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice." Garriott v. State , 2018 WY 4 , ¶ 21, 408 P.3d 771 , 780-81 (quoting Hathaway v. State , 2017 WY 92 , ¶ 29, 399 P.3d 625 , 634 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Griggs v. State , 2016 WY 16 , ¶ 81, 367 P.3d 1108 , 1132-33 (Wyo. 2016) ) ). [¶23] The instruction challenged by Mr. Farrow appears in th 2019As often stated, plain error exists when: "(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation *818 of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice." Garriott v. State , 2018 WY 4 , ¶ 21, 408 P.3d 771 , 780-81 (quoting Hathaway v. State , 2017 WY 92 , ¶ 29, 399 P.3d 625 , 634 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Griggs v. State , 2016 WY 16 , ¶ 81, 367 P.3d 1108 , 1132-33 (Wyo. 2016) ) ). [¶23] The instruction challenged by Mr. Farrow appears in th | 3 | 5 |
Miller v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Miller v. State, 2006 WY 17, ¶ 15 , 127 P.3d 798, 797-793 (Wyo.2006). 2010Miller v. State, 2006 WY 17, ¶ 15 , 127 P.3d 793, 797-98 (Wyo.2006). | 2 | 3 |
Lessard v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Lessard v. State, 2007 WY 89, ¶ 14 , 158 P.3d 698, 702 (Wyo.2007); Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 10 , 148 P.3d 23, 28 (Wyo.2006); Ogden v. State, 2001 WY 109, ¶ 9 , 34 P.3d 271, 274 (Wyo.2001). 2008Lessard v. State, 2007 WY 89, ¶ 14 , 158 P.3d 698, 702 (Wyo.2007); Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 10 , 148 P.3d 23, 28 (Wyo.2006); Ogden v. State, 2001 WY 109, ¶ 9 , 34 P.3d 271, 274 (Wyo.2001). | 2 | 2 |
Ogden v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Lessard v. State, 2007 WY 89, ¶ 14 , 158 P.3d 698, 702 (Wyo.2007); Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 10 , 148 P.3d 23, 28 (Wyo.2006); Ogden v. State, 2001 WY 109, ¶ 9 , 34 P.3d 271, 274 (Wyo.2001). 2008Lessard v. State, 2007 WY 89, ¶ 14 , 158 P.3d 698, 702 (Wyo.2007); Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 10 , 148 P.3d 23, 28 (Wyo.2006); Ogden v. State, 2001 WY 109, ¶ 9 , 34 P.3d 271, 274 (Wyo.2001). | 2 | 2 |
Garriott v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Plain error exists when “(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Id. at ¶ 22, 437 P.3d at 817 -18 (quoting Garriott v. State, 2018 WY 4, ¶ 21 , 408 P.3d 771, 780-81 (Wyo. 2018)). 3 [¶35] We find plain error does not exist because a clear and unequivocal rule of law was not violated. 2025Plain error exists when “(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Id. at ¶ 22, 437 P.3d at 817 -18 (quoting Garriott v. State, 2018 WY 4, ¶ 21 , 408 P.3d 771, 780-81 (Wyo. 2018)). 3 [¶35] We find plain error does not exist because a clear and unequivocal rule of law was not violated. | 1 | 3 |
Hathaway v. Stategreen2 sentences2019As often stated, plain error exists when: "(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation *818 of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice." Garriott v. State , 2018 WY 4 , ¶ 21, 408 P.3d 771 , 780-81 (quoting Hathaway v. State , 2017 WY 92 , ¶ 29, 399 P.3d 625 , 634 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Griggs v. State , 2016 WY 16 , ¶ 81, 367 P.3d 1108 , 1132-33 (Wyo. 2016) ) ). [¶23] The instruction challenged by Mr. Farrow appears in th 2019As often stated, plain error exists when: "(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation *818 of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice." Garriott v. State , 2018 WY 4 , ¶ 21, 408 P.3d 771 , 780-81 (quoting Hathaway v. State , 2017 WY 92 , ¶ 29, 399 P.3d 625 , 634 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Griggs v. State , 2016 WY 16 , ¶ 81, 367 P.3d 1108 , 1132-33 (Wyo. 2016) ) ). [¶23] The instruction challenged by Mr. Farrow appears in th | 1 | 3 |
Raymond Martin Brown v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2021Brown v. State, 2019 WY 102, ¶ 13 , 450 P.3d 208, 211 (Wyo. 2019); Hathaway v. State, 2017 WY 92, ¶ 29 , 399 P.3d 625, 634 (Wyo. 2017); Griggs, ¶ 81, 367 P.3d at 1132-33 . [¶11] The admission of TM’s recorded interview is clearly reflected in the record, satisfying the first element of the plain error test. 2021Brown v. State, 2019 WY 102, ¶ 13 , 450 P.3d 208, 211 (Wyo. 2019); Hathaway v. State, 2017 WY 92, ¶ 29 , 399 P.3d 625, 634 (Wyo. 2017); Griggs, ¶ 81, 367 P.3d at 1132-33 . [¶11] The admission of TM’s recorded interview is clearly reflected in the record, satisfying the first element of the plain error test. | 1 | 1 |
Danell Blevins v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also Blevins v. State, 2017 WY 43, ¶ 25 , 393 P.3d 1249, 1255 (Wyo. 2017). [¶30] Mr. Hathaway argues that, applying the principles from Sweet , reversal of his conviétion is required. 2017See also Blevins v. State, 2017 WY 43, ¶ 25 , 393 P.3d 1249, 1255 (Wyo. 2017). [¶30] Mr. Hathaway argues that, applying the principles from Sweet , reversal of his conviétion is required. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Brown v. State, 2005 WY 37, ¶ 8 , 109 P.3d 52, 55 (Wyo.2005); Blakeman v. State, 2004 WY 139, ¶ 18 , 100 P.3d 1229, 1234 (Wyo.2004); Fortner v. State, 932 P.2d 1283, 1286 (Wyo. 1997). 2006Brown v. State, 2005 WY 37, ¶ 8 , 109 P.3d 52, 55 (Wyo.2005); Blakeman v. State, 2004 WY 139, ¶ 18 , 100 P.3d 1229, 1234 (Wyo.2004); Fortner v. State, 932 P.2d 1283, 1286 (Wyo. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Miller v. State, 2006 WY 17, ¶ 15 , 127 P.3d 793, 797-798 (Wyo.2006). [¶ 11] In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e assess whether all the evidence presented is adequate to form the basis for an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by a finder of fact when that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State.” Lopez v. State, 2004 WY 28, ¶ 16 , 86 P.3d 851, 857 (Wyo.2004) (quoting Estrada-Sanchez v. State, 2003 WY 45, ¶ 6 , 66 P.3d 703, 707 (Wyo.2003)). 2006Miller v. State, 2006 WY 17, ¶ 15 , 127 P.3d 793, 797-798 (Wyo.2006). [¶ 11] In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e assess whether all the evidence presented is adequate to form the basis for an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by a finder of fact when that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State.” Lopez v. State, 2004 WY 28, ¶ 16 , 86 P.3d 851, 857 (Wyo.2004) (quoting Estrada-Sanchez v. State, 2003 WY 45, ¶ 6 , 66 P.3d 703, 707 (Wyo.2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Fortner v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Brown v. State, 2005 WY 37, ¶ 8 , 109 P.3d 52, 55 (Wyo.2005); Blakeman v. State, 2004 WY 139, ¶ 18 , 100 P.3d 1229, 1234 (Wyo.2004); Fortner v. State, 932 P.2d 1283, 1286 (Wyo. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Blakeman v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Brown v. State, 2005 WY 37, ¶ 8 , 109 P.3d 52, 55 (Wyo.2005); Blakeman v. State, 2004 WY 139, ¶ 18 , 100 P.3d 1229, 1234 (Wyo.2004); Fortner v. State, 932 P.2d 1283, 1286 (Wyo. 1997). 2006Brown v. State, 2005 WY 37, ¶ 8 , 109 P.3d 52, 55 (Wyo.2005); Blakeman v. State, 2004 WY 139, ¶ 18 , 100 P.3d 1229, 1234 (Wyo.2004); Fortner v. State, 932 P.2d 1283, 1286 (Wyo. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Estrada-Sanchez v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Miller v. State, 2006 WY 17, ¶ 15 , 127 P.3d 793, 797-798 (Wyo.2006). [¶ 11] In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e assess whether all the evidence presented is adequate to form the basis for an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by a finder of fact when that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State.” Lopez v. State, 2004 WY 28, ¶ 16 , 86 P.3d 851, 857 (Wyo.2004) (quoting Estrada-Sanchez v. State, 2003 WY 45, ¶ 6 , 66 P.3d 703, 707 (Wyo.2003)). 2006Miller v. State, 2006 WY 17, ¶ 15 , 127 P.3d 793, 797-798 (Wyo.2006). [¶ 11] In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e assess whether all the evidence presented is adequate to form the basis for an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by a finder of fact when that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State.” Lopez v. State, 2004 WY 28, ¶ 16 , 86 P.3d 851, 857 (Wyo.2004) (quoting Estrada-Sanchez v. State, 2003 WY 45, ¶ 6 , 66 P.3d 703, 707 (Wyo.2003)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Farrow v. State
green
1 sentence2025Plain error exists when “(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Id. at ¶ 22, 437 P.3d at 817 -18 (quoting Garriott v. State, 2018 WY 4, ¶ 21 , 408 P.3d 771, 780-81 (Wyo. 2018)). 3 [¶35] We find plain error does not exist because a clear and unequivocal rule of law was not violated. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.