87 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2026 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Piroschak v. Whelangreen2 sentences2019Wright, 2001 WY 128, ¶ 12 , 36 P.3d 617, 621 (Wyo. 2001) (citation omitted) (“[T]he findings of a trial judge concerning conclusions of law and disposition of the issues are presumptively correct . . . .”). “[T]his Court reviews a district court’s findings and conclusions using a clearly erroneous standard for the factual findings and a de novo standard for the conclusions of law.” Forbes v Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 22 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1050 (Wyo. 2015) (citing Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7 , 106 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo. 2005); see also Gould v. Ochsner, 2015 WY 101, ¶ 30 , 354 P.3d 965 , 974 n.5 2019Wright, 2001 WY 128, ¶ 12 , 36 P.3d 617, 621 (Wyo. 2001) (citation omitted) (“[T]he findings of a trial judge concerning conclusions of law and disposition of the issues are presumptively correct . . . .”). “[T]his Court reviews a district court’s findings and conclusions using a clearly erroneous standard for the factual findings and a de novo standard for the conclusions of law.” Forbes v Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 22 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1050 (Wyo. 2015) (citing Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7 , 106 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo. 2005); see also Gould v. Ochsner, 2015 WY 101, ¶ 30 , 354 P.3d 965 , 974 n.5 | 21 | 21 |
Rennard v. Vollmargreen2 sentences2015Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7 , 106 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo.2005) (citing Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp., 2003 WY 165, ¶ 13 , 81 P.3d 215, 218 (Wyo.2003) and Rennard v. Vollmar, 977 P.2d 1277, 1279 (Wyo.1999)). 2015Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7 , 106 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo. 2005) (citing Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp., 2003 WY 165, ¶ 13 , 81 P.3d 215, 218 (Wyo. 2003) and Rennard v. Vollmar, 977 P.2d 1277, 1279 (Wyo. 1999)). | 7 | 7 |
Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp.green2 sentences2015Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7 , 106 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo.2005) (citing Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp., 2003 WY 165, ¶ 13 , 81 P.3d 215, 218 (Wyo.2003) and Rennard v. Vollmar, 977 P.2d 1277, 1279 (Wyo.1999)). 2015Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7 , 106 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo.2005) (citing Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp., 2003 WY 165, ¶ 13 , 81 P.3d 215, 218 (Wyo.2003) and Rennard v. Vollmar, 977 P.2d 1277, 1279 (Wyo.1999)). | 7 | 7 |
Anderson v. Bommergreen2 sentences2014We review questions of law under a de novo standard of review and afford no deference to the district court's determinations on the issues." Bear Cloud II, 2018 WY 18 , ¶13, 294 P.3d at 40 (citing Anderson v. Bommer, 926 P.2d 959, 961 (Wyo.1996)). [¶14] We analyze this issue under the United States Constitution and not the Wyoming Constitution because Mr. Bear Cloud makes no more than a passing reference to the protections that might be afforded by our state constitution. 4 We agree that our state constitution need not necessarily be analyzed by "blindly follow[ing] the United States Supreme C 2013Anderson v. Bommer, 926 P.2d 959, 961 (Wyo.1996). [114] This appeal also requires the Court to interpret and apply the statutes governing sentencing for first-degree murder and parole eligibility. | 7 | 7 |
Lindsey v. Harrietgreen2 sentences2014Lindsey v. Harriet, 2011 WY 80, ¶ 18 , 255 P.3d 873, 880 (Wyo.2011). [T17] With respect to the rulings made by the court following the bench trial, we apply the following standard of review: Following a bench trial, this court reviews a district court's findings and conclusions using a clearly erroneous standard for the factual findings and a de novo standard for the conclusions of law. 2014Lindsey v. Harriet, 2011 WY 80, ¶ 18 , 255 P.3d 873, 880 (Wyo.2011). [T17] With respect to the rulings made by the court following the bench trial, we apply the following standard of review: Following a bench trial, this court reviews a district court's findings and conclusions using a clearly erroneous standard for the factual findings and a de novo standard for the conclusions of law. | 4 | 4 |
Anita Harmon, as an Individual and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Euella Pottergreen2 sentences2022Ctr., 2014 WY 90, ¶ 17 , 331 P.3d 1174, 1178 (Wyo. 2014)). 2022Ctr., 2014 WY 90, ¶ 17 , 331 P.3d 1174, 1178 (Wyo. 2014)). | 3 | 3 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Wright, 2001 WY 128, ¶ 12 , 36 P.3d 617, 621 (Wyo. 2001) (citation omitted) (“[T]he findings of a trial judge concerning conclusions of law and disposition of the issues are presumptively correct . . . .”). “[T]his Court reviews a district court’s findings and conclusions using a clearly erroneous standard for the factual findings and a de novo standard for the conclusions of law.” Forbes v Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 22 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1050 (Wyo. 2015) (citing Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7 , 106 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo. 2005); see also Gould v. Ochsner, 2015 WY 101, ¶ 30 , 354 P.3d 965 , 974 n.5 2015Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 22 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1050-51 (Wyo.2015) (citing Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7 , 106 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo.2005)). | 3 | 3 |
In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To ARW, a minor child: DRWgreen2 sentences2016DRW v. DLP (In re ARW), 2015 WY 25 , ¶ 11, 343 P.3d 407, 410 (Wyo. 2015). 2016DRW v. DLP (In re ARW), 2015 WY 25 , ¶ 11, 343 P.3d 407, 410 (Wyo. 2015). | 3 | 3 |
Moronese v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Cothren v. State, 2013 WY 125, ¶ 25 , 310 P.3d 908, 915 (Wyo.2013); Moronese v. State, 2012 WY 34, ¶ 5 , 271 P.3d 1011, 1013 (Wyo.2012). 2014Cothren v. State, 2013 WY 125, ¶ 25 , 310 P.3d 908, 915 (Wyo.2013); Moronese v. State, 2012 WY 34, ¶ 5 , 271 P.3d 1011, 1013 (Wyo.2012). | 3 | 3 |
Berry v. Stategreen2 sentences2008In reviewing a district court's decision on whether a defendant's constitutional right has been violated, we apply the de novo standard of review.: Berry v. State, 2004 WY 81, ¶ 17 , 93 P.3d 222, 227-28 (Wyo.2004). 2008In reviewing a district court's decision on whether a defendant's constitutional right has been violated, we apply the de novo standard of review.: Berry v. State, 2004 WY 81, ¶ 17 , 93 P.3d 222, 227-28 (Wyo.2004). | 3 | 3 |
Belden v. Thorkildsengreen2 sentences2008Belden v. Thorkildsen, 2007 WY 68, ¶ 11 , 156 P.3d 320, 323 (Wyo.2007). 2008Belden v. Thorkildsen, 2007 WY 68, ¶ 11 , 156 P.3d 320, 323 (Wyo.2007). | 3 | 3 |
Armando Ramirez v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Spreeman v. State, 2012 WY 88, ¶ 6 , 278 P.3d 1159, 1161 (Wyo. 2012); Ramirez v. State, 2016 WY 128, ¶ 7 , 386 P.3d 348, 349 (Wyo. 2016) (“We apply a de novo standard of review to issues of statutory interpretation.”). 2021Spreeman v. State, 2012 WY 88, ¶ 6 , 278 P.3d 1159, 1161 (Wyo. 2012); Ramirez v. State, 2016 WY 128, ¶ 7 , 386 P.3d 348, 349 (Wyo. 2016) (“We apply a de novo standard of review to issues of statutory interpretation.”). | 2 | 4 |
Cassidy v. Teton Cnty. Coroner (In re Birkholz)green2 sentences2026Matter of Birkholz, 2019 WY 19 , ¶ 13, 434 P.3d 1102, 1105 (Wyo. 2019) (citing Ramirez v. State, 2016 WY 128, ¶ 7 , 386 P.3d 348, 349 (Wyo. 2016)). “[O]ur primary objective is to give effect to the legislature’s intent.” Id. (quoting Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Laramie Cnty. 2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶7] “This Court applies a de novo standard of review to issues of statutory interpretation.” Lynch v. State, 2026 WY 8, ¶ 5 , 582 P.3d. 908 , 909 (Wyo. 2026) (citing In re Birkholz, 2019 WY 19 , ¶ 13, 434 P.3d 1102, 1105 (Wyo. 2019)). | 2 | 2 |
Urbigkit v. Stategreen2 sentences2023TJS v. State, 2005 WY 68, ¶ 9 , 113 P.3d 1054, 1056-57 (Wyo. 2005) (“We apply a de novo standard of review when evaluating the issuance of a search warrant under Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution.” (citing Urbigkit v. State, 2003 WY 57, ¶ 9 , 67 P.3d 1207, 1213 (Wyo. 2003))). [¶13] Article 1, § 4 provides: 1 In his brief, Mr. Kreusel claimed the journal entries admitted as evidence at trial included “doodles made [b]y Mr. Kreusel in [his] handwritten journals depicting figures engaged in acts of violence.” He acknowledged at oral argument that such doodles were not admitted at trial a 2023TJS v. State, 2005 WY 68, ¶ 9 , 113 P.3d 1054, 1056-57 (Wyo. 2005) (“We apply a de novo standard of review when evaluating the issuance of a search warrant under Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution.” (citing Urbigkit v. State, 2003 WY 57, ¶ 9 , 67 P.3d 1207, 1213 (Wyo. 2003))). [¶13] Article 1, § 4 provides: 1 In his brief, Mr. Kreusel claimed the journal entries admitted as evidence at trial included “doodles made [b]y Mr. Kreusel in [his] handwritten journals depicting figures engaged in acts of violence.” He acknowledged at oral argument that such doodles were not admitted at trial a | 2 | 2 |
Kennison v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Kennison v. State, 2018 WY 46 , ¶ 11, 417 P.3d 146, 147 (Wyo. 2018); Jennings v. State, 2016 WY 69, ¶ 8 , 375 P.3d 788, 790 (Wyo. 2016). 5 This Court applies the substantial evidence standard in cases where the administrative agency decision being reviewed was made after a contested case hearing. 2018See, e.g. , Kennison v. State, 2018 WY 46 , ¶ 11, 417 P.3d 146 , 147 (Wyo. 2018) ; Jennings v. State, 2016 WY 69 , ¶ 8, 375 P.3d 788 , 790 (Wyo. 2016). [¶13] On the other hand, the abuse of discretion standard is generally used to review claims that the district court erred in admitting evidence when a proper objection was made at trial. | 2 | 2 |
Jerele Craig Cothren, Jr. v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2014Cothren v. State, 2013 WY 125, ¶ 25 , 310 P.3d 908, 915 (Wyo.2013); Moronese v. State, 2012 WY 34, ¶ 5 , 271 P.3d 1011, 1013 (Wyo.2012). 2014Cothren v. State, 2013 WY 125, ¶ 25 , 310 P.3d 908, 915 (Wyo.2013); Moronese v. State, 2012 WY 34, ¶ 5 , 271 P.3d 1011, 1013 (Wyo.2012). | 2 | 2 |
Redland v. Redlandgreen2 sentences2013STANDARD OF REVIEW [114] We recently stated in Redland v. Redland, 2012 WY 148, ¶ 48 , 288 P.3d 1173, 1185 (Wyo.2012) as follows: Following a bench trial, this court reviews a district court's findings and conclusions using a clearly erroneous standard for the factual findings and a de novo standard for the conclusions of law. 2013STANDARD OF REVIEW [114] We recently stated in Redland v. Redland, 2012 WY 148, ¶ 48 , 288 P.3d 1173, 1185 (Wyo.2012) as follows: Following a bench trial, this court reviews a district court's findings and conclusions using a clearly erroneous standard for the factual findings and a de novo standard for the conclusions of law. | 2 | 2 |
Paramo v. Stategreen2 sentences2003STANDARD OF REVIEW [T9] "Where proper objection is made on the record, a district court's failure to give a lesser-included offense instruction is subject to a de novo standard of review." Houghton v. State, 6 P.3d 648, 646 (Wyo.2000) (citing Paramo v. State, 896 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Wyo.1995)). 2000Paramo v. State, 896 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Wyo.1995). | 2 | 2 |
Cameron Clayton Jennings v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Kennison v. State, 2018 WY 46 , ¶ 11, 417 P.3d 146, 147 (Wyo. 2018); Jennings v. State, 2016 WY 69, ¶ 8 , 375 P.3d 788, 790 (Wyo. 2016). 5 This Court applies the substantial evidence standard in cases where the administrative agency decision being reviewed was made after a contested case hearing. 2021See, e.g., Kennison v. State, 2018 WY 46 , ¶ 11, 417 P.3d 146, 147 (Wyo. 2018); Jennings v. State, 2016 WY 69, ¶ 8 , 375 P.3d 788, 790 (Wyo. 2016). 5 This Court applies the substantial evidence standard in cases where the administrative agency decision being reviewed was made after a contested case hearing. | 1 | 2 |
Hofstad v. Christiegreen2 sentences2019STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶5] "Following a bench trial, this court reviews a district court's findings and conclusions using a clearly erroneous standard for the factual findings and a de novo standard for the conclusions of law." Hofstad v. Christie , 2010 WY 134 , ¶ 7, 240 P.3d 816 , 818 (Wyo. 2010) (citation omitted). [¶6] "Requests for equitable relief are matters over which the district court exercises broad discretion." Jacoby v. Jacoby , 2004 WY 140 , ¶ 7, 100 P.3d 852 , 855 (Wyo. 2004) (citation omitted). 2019STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶5] "Following a bench trial, this court reviews a district court's findings and conclusions using a clearly erroneous standard for the factual findings and a de novo standard for the conclusions of law." Hofstad v. Christie , 2010 WY 134 , ¶ 7, 240 P.3d 816 , 818 (Wyo. 2010) (citation omitted). [¶6] "Requests for equitable relief are matters over which the district court exercises broad discretion." Jacoby v. Jacoby , 2004 WY 140 , ¶ 7, 100 P.3d 852 , 855 (Wyo. 2004) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Leopoldo Hermosillo Alvarado v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2026“We afford no deference to the district court’s determinations.” Alvarado v. State, 2024 WY 9, ¶ 4 , 541 P.3d 1097, 1099 (Wyo. 2024) (citation omitted). 2026“We afford no deference to the district court’s determinations.” Alvarado v. State, 2024 WY 9, ¶ 4 , 541 P.3d 1097, 1099 (Wyo. 2024) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| B & W Glass, Inc. v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Boot Ranch, Llc, a Wyoming Close Limited Liability Company v. Wagonhound Land & Livestock Company, Llc, a Wyoming Limited Liability Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights to AGS and AMLD, Minor Children. SASgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Clifford Giles Springstead v. The State of Wyominggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Donald Allen Grater Jr. v. The State of Wyominggreen | 1 | 1 |
| In the Interest of TJS v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bouch v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Downs v. Homax Oil Sales, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Rammell v. Mountainaire Animal Clinic, P.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Spreeman v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| James Leonard Mills v. The State of Wyominggreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gould v. Ochsnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Whitt v. State Ex Rel. Wrightgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Elmer Candelario v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 2826082green | 1 | 1 |
| Blagrove v. JB Mechanical, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Merit Energy Company, LLC v. Blake Horrgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
William C. Forbes and Julia Forbes, Trustees of the Beckton Ranch Trust U/A/D April 1, 1920
green
2 sentences2019Wright, 2001 WY 128, ¶ 12 , 36 P.3d 617, 621 (Wyo. 2001) (citation omitted) (“[T]he findings of a trial judge concerning conclusions of law and disposition of the issues are presumptively correct . . . .”). “[T]his Court reviews a district court’s findings and conclusions using a clearly erroneous standard for the factual findings and a de novo standard for the conclusions of law.” Forbes v Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 22 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1050 (Wyo. 2015) (citing Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7 , 106 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo. 2005); see also Gould v. Ochsner, 2015 WY 101, ¶ 30 , 354 P.3d 965 , 974 n.5 2015Forbes v. Forbes, 2015 WY 13, ¶ 22 , 341 P.3d 1041, 1050-51 (Wyo.2015) (citing Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7 , 106 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo.2005)). | 3 | 2015–2019 |
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion
green
2 sentences2006Bush, ¶ 12, 120 P.3d at 181 (quoting Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 , 105 S.Ct. 1598, 1607 , 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985)). 2006Bush, ¶ 12, 120 P.3d at 181 (quoting Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 , 105 S.Ct. 1598, 1607 , 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985)). | 3 | 2005–2006 |
Windham v. Windham
green
2 sentences2022“As long as there exists a legitimate basis for the trial court’s ruling, that ruling will not be disturbed on appeal.” Rammell v. Mountainaire Animal Clinic, P.C., 2019 WY 53 , ¶ 29, 442 P.3d 41, 49 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Downs v. Homax Oil Sales, Inc., 2018 WY 71 , ¶ 19, 421 P.3d 518, 523 (Wyo. 2018)). [¶18] When a district court imposes sanctions following discovery violations, “[w]e apply a de novo standard of review to the question whether the district court correctly interpreted W.R.C.P. 37.” Windham, ¶ 12, 348 P.3d at 840 (citing Harmon v. Star Valley Med. 2020When a district court imposes sanctions following discovery violations, “[w]e apply a de novo standard of review to the question whether the district court correctly interpreted W.R.C.P. 37.” Windham, ¶ 12, 348 P.3d at 840 (citing Harmon v. Star Valley Med. | 2 | 2020–2022 |
Alcorn v. Sauer Drilling Co.
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Perritt v. State
green
2 sentences2006Bush, ¶ 12, 120 P.3d at 181 (quoting Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 , 105 S.Ct. 1598, 1607 , 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985)). 2005Bush, ¶ 12, 120 P.3d at 181 (quoting Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 , 105 S.Ct. 1598, 1607 , 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985)). | 2 | 2005–2006 |
Williams v. ZONING ADJUSTMENT BD. OF CITY OF LARAMIE
neutral
2 sentences1982In interpreting that statute, this court concluded that the "appeal" authorized by its provisions was analogous to a trial de novo hearing from a decision of a governing board of a town or municipality with respect to the denial of a liquor license in accordance with § 12-4-104(f), W.S. 1977, which recently was discussed in City of Evanston v. Whirl Inn, Inc., supra. See Williams v. Zoning Adjustment Board of City of Laramie, Wyo., 383 P.2d 730 (1963); In re McInerney, 47 Wyo. 258 , 34 P.2d 35 (1934). 1982In interpreting that statute, this court concluded that the “appeal” authorized by its provisions was analogous to a trial de novo hearing from a decision of a governing board of a town or municipality with respect to the denial of a liquor license in accordance with § 12-4-104(f), W.S.1977, which recently was discussed in City of Evanston v. Whirl Inn, Inc., supra. See Williams v. Zoning Adjustment Board of City of Laramie, Wyo., 383 P.2d 730 (1963); In re McInerney, 47 Wyo. 258 , 34 P.2d 35 (1934). | 2 | 1982–1982 |
Building Inspector v. McInerney
green
2 sentences1982In interpreting that statute, this court concluded that the “appeal” authorized by its provisions was analogous to a trial de novo hearing from a decision of a governing board of a town or municipality with respect to the denial of a liquor license in accordance with § 12-4-104(f), W.S.1977, which recently was discussed in City of Evanston v. Whirl Inn, Inc., supra. See Williams v. Zoning Adjustment Board of City of Laramie, Wyo., 383 P.2d 730 (1963); In re McInerney, 47 Wyo. 258 , 34 P.2d 35 (1934). 1982In interpreting that statute, this court concluded that the “appeal” authorized by its provisions was analogous to a trial de novo hearing from a decision of a governing board of a town or municipality with respect to the denial of a liquor license in accordance with § 12-4-104(f), W.S.1977, which recently was discussed in City of Evanston v. Whirl Inn, Inc., supra. See Williams v. Zoning Adjustment Board of City of Laramie, Wyo., 383 P.2d 730 (1963); In re McInerney, 47 Wyo. 258 , 34 P.2d 35 (1934). | 2 | 1982–1982 |
Russell Lee Lynch v. The State of Wyoming
neutral
1 sentence2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶7] “This Court applies a de novo standard of review to issues of statutory interpretation.” Lynch v. State, 2026 WY 8, ¶ 5 , 582 P.3d. 908 , 909 (Wyo. 2026) (citing In re Birkholz, 2019 WY 19 , ¶ 13, 434 P.3d 1102, 1105 (Wyo. 2019)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Wyatt L. Bear Cloud
green
1 sentence2026Issues of constitutionality are reviewed “under a de novo standard of review and [we] afford no deference to the district court’s determinations on the issues.” Bear Cloud III, ¶ 13, 334 P.3d 132, 137 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Estate of Weeks v. Weeks-Rohner green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Vanessa Taulo-Millar v. Kormakur Hognason green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| J. William Winney, Jr. v. Michael Troy Jerup green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Four B Properties, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Ranch 10, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company v. The Nature Conservancy, a District of Columbia non-profit corporation green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Wade Loyning v. Neisha Potter and Fern Ridge Counseling green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Nicholas Hull v. North Lincoln Hospital District, Dba Star Valley Health; Todd Haderlie, M.D.; Christian M. Morgan, M.D.; Denise Allred, Rn; Myka Hillstead, Rn; Deanna Starcer, Rn; and Ashley Thornock, Rn green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Jacoby v. Jacoby green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Commonwealth v. Batts, Q., Aplt. red | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Bear Peak Resources, LLC v. Peak Powder River Resources, LLC green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Perry v. Vaught green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Bergren v. Berggren green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Wyatt L. Bear Cloud v. The State of Wyoming green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Egan v. Egan green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Reyna v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Rutti v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Beitel v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'COMPENSATION DIV. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Eklund v. PRI Environmental, Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Binette green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.