history rule in Wyoming

1991The rule finds its genesis in the common law principle "nullum tempus occurrit regi," or "time does not run against the king." The history of this principle is set forth in the early federal case of United States v. Hoar, 26 F.Cas. 329, 329-30 (D.Mass. 1821) (No. 15,373, 2 Mason 311 ), as follows: "[I]t may be laid down as a safe proposition, that no statute of limitations has been held to apply to actions brought by the crown, unless there has been an express provision including it. * * * [I]t was ruled in the Case of Magdalen College, 11 Cooke 68 , 74b, 1 Rolle, 151 that `the king has a prer

1991The rule finds its genesis in the common law principle "nullum tempus occurrit regi," or "time does not run against the king." The history of this principle is set forth in the early federal case of United States v. Hoar, 26 F.Cas. 329, 329-30 (D.Mass. 1821) (No. 15,373, 2 Mason 311 ), as follows: "[I]t may be laid down as a safe proposition, that no statute of limitations has been held to apply to actions brought by the crown, unless there has been an express provision including it. * * * [I]t was ruled in the Case of Magdalen College, 11 Cooke 68 , 74b, 1 Rolle, 151 that `the king has a prer

1993Under Chevron, we must consider three factors: First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed[.] Second, it has been stressed that "we must * * * weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation." Finally, we have weighed the inequity impose

1993Under Chevron, we must consider three factors: First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed[.] Second, it has been stressed that "we must * * * weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation." Finally, we have weighed the inequity impose

2012Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for "Iwlhere a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the 'injustice or hardship' by a holding of nonretroactivity." Adkins v. Sky Blue, Inc., 701 P.2d 549, 552 (Wyo.1985) (quoting Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. 349, 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)). [¶ 15] Our decision to apply Johnson prospectively is consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance on the operation of new law, and the cirenmstances

1975See Wainwright v. Stone, supra, Warring v. Colpoys, supra, and State v. Barquet, note 17, infra. . “ ⅜ ⅜ * [W]e take as our starting point Linkletter’s conclusion that ‘the accepted rule today is that in appropriate cases the Court may in the interest of justice make the rule prospective,’ that there is ‘no impediment — constitutional or philosophical — to the use of the same rule in the constitutional area where the exigencies of the situation require such an application,’ in short that ‘the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires retrospective effect.’ Upon that premise, resolution of th

1975See Wainwright v. Stone, supra, Warring v. Colpoys, supra, and State v. Barquet, note 17, infra. . “ ⅜ ⅜ * [W]e take as our starting point Linkletter’s conclusion that ‘the accepted rule today is that in appropriate cases the Court may in the interest of justice make the rule prospective,’ that there is ‘no impediment — constitutional or philosophical — to the use of the same rule in the constitutional area where the exigencies of the situation require such an application,’ in short that ‘the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires retrospective effect.’ Upon that premise, resolution of th