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.
11 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leithead v. American Colloid Co.green2 sentences1994See Leithead v. American Colloid Company, 721 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Wyo.1986). 1994See Leithead v. American Colloid Company, 721 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Wyo.1986). | 2 | 2 |
Kelly Wilcox v. Security State Bankgreen2 sentences2024See Gates, 719 P.2d at 196 (applying this factor test to determine whether to recognize the new tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress); Wilcox v. Security State Bank, 2023 WY 2, ¶ 39 , 523 P.3d 277, 287 (Wyo. 2023) (evaluating whether to recognize a new tort of negligent advising); Duncan v. Afton, Inc., 991 P.2d 739, 744 (Wyo. 1999) (applying the eight-factor test to determine “whether a duty should be imposed based on a particular relationship”). [¶18] We decline Officer Briggs’s invitation for three reasons. 2024See Gates, 719 P.2d at 196 (applying this factor test to determine whether to recognize the new tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress); Wilcox v. Security State Bank, 2023 WY 2, ¶ 39 , 523 P.3d 277, 287 (Wyo. 2023) (evaluating whether to recognize a new tort of negligent advising); Duncan v. Afton, Inc., 991 P.2d 739, 744 (Wyo. 1999) (applying the eight-factor test to determine “whether a duty should be imposed based on a particular relationship”). [¶18] We decline Officer Briggs’s invitation for three reasons. | 1 | 1 |
Duncan v. Afton, Inc.green1 sentence2024See Gates, 719 P.2d at 196 (applying this factor test to determine whether to recognize the new tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress); Wilcox v. Security State Bank, 2023 WY 2, ¶ 39 , 523 P.3d 277, 287 (Wyo. 2023) (evaluating whether to recognize a new tort of negligent advising); Duncan v. Afton, Inc., 991 P.2d 739, 744 (Wyo. 1999) (applying the eight-factor test to determine “whether a duty should be imposed based on a particular relationship”). [¶18] We decline Officer Briggs’s invitation for three reasons. | 1 | 1 |
Ortega v. Flaimgreen1 sentence2024First, the federal district court asked us to evaluate duty in the context of a traditional negligence claim, noting in its certification order that our opinion would be “potentially dispositive of Palm-Egle’s negligence claim.” Congruently, we have been reticent to recognize new duties and their associated causes of action “without a proper record and insightful analysis of whether conditions in Wyoming warrant a change.” Wilcox, 2023 WY 2, ¶ 49 , 523 P.3d at 289 (citing Ortega v. Flaim, 902 P.2d 199, 204 (Wyo. 1995)). [¶19] As noted, the record before us is sparse. | 1 | 1 |
Keats v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Keats, ¶ 13, 64 P.3d at 108 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of the Name Change of J.P.H.green1 sentence2022See generally J.P.H., 865 N.W.2d 488 ; In re Leyna A., No. M2016-02548-COA-R3-JV, 2017 WL 4083644 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2017); Walden v. Jackson, 2016 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Hurd v. State (In re EMM)green1 sentence2021Compare In re DKS, ¶ 22, 456 P.3d at 925, and Matter of EMM, 2018 WY 36 , ¶¶ 11, 13, 414 P.3d 1157, 1160 (Wyo. 2018) (explaining that a trial court must consider three factors to resolve a motion to set aside entry of default and, in applying the factor test, “[n]o single factor is dispositive of the issue, and the ultimate determination under a factor test rule is made by weighing or balancing the conclusions on the individual factors against one another”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i | 1 | 1 |
Markby v. St. Anthony Hospital Systemsgreen1 sentence2004Anthony Hospital Systems, 647 P.2d 1068, 1070-74 (Wyo.1982) (special “fairness” considerations are a factor in the analysis of personal jurisdiction cases). [¶ 13] Continuing our consideration of the standard of review to be applied here, we take note of this discussion from 4 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kline v. People
green
1 sentence2023Kline v. People, 367 P.3d 116 , 123–25 (Colo. 2016). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Klein
green
1 sentence2023For purposes of our discussion here, we decipher no substantive difference when these various terms are used. 8 Diamondstone, 105 P.3d at 4 . 5 The factors evaluated in Colorado are (1) character; (2) conduct since the imposition of the original discipline; (3) professional competence; (4) candor and sincerity; (5) recommendations of other witnesses; (6) present business pursuits; (7) personal aspects and community service; and (8) recognition of the seriousness of the previous misconduct. 6 Klein, 756 P.2d at 1015–16. [¶24] In 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court applied the factor test when it e | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Disability Proceeding Against Diamondstone
green
1 sentence2023For purposes of our discussion here, we decipher no substantive difference when these various terms are used. 8 Diamondstone, 105 P.3d at 4 . 5 The factors evaluated in Colorado are (1) character; (2) conduct since the imposition of the original discipline; (3) professional competence; (4) candor and sincerity; (5) recommendations of other witnesses; (6) present business pursuits; (7) personal aspects and community service; and (8) recognition of the seriousness of the previous misconduct. 6 Klein, 756 P.2d at 1015–16. [¶24] In 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court applied the factor test when it e | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Walden v. Jackson II
neutral
1 sentence2022See generally J.P.H., 865 N.W.2d 488 ; In re Leyna A., No. M2016-02548-COA-R3-JV, 2017 WL 4083644 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2017); Walden v. Jackson, 2016 Ark. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Jean Best v. Brianna Best
green
2 sentences2020For a decision to warrant only prospective application, the decision “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.” Id. ¶ 30, 357 P.3d at 1156 (quoting Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106 , 92 S. Ct. 349, 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)).5 5 Chevron provides a factor test for determining whether a decision should apply prospectively only. 2020Best, ¶ 30, 357 P.3d at 1156 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson
red
2 sentences2020For a decision to warrant only prospective application, the decision “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.” Id. ¶ 30, 357 P.3d at 1156 (quoting Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106 , 92 S. Ct. 349, 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)).5 5 Chevron provides a factor test for determining whether a decision should apply prospectively only. 2020For a decision to warrant only prospective application, the decision “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.” Id. ¶ 30, 357 P.3d at 1156 (quoting Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106 , 92 S. Ct. 349, 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)).5 5 Chevron provides a factor test for determining whether a decision should apply prospectively only. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Graham
green
1 sentence2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i 2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Ruffing
green
2 sentences2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i 2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Maguire
green
2 sentences2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i 2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Killian v. Caza Drilling, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018While the issue of proximate cause is sometimes explained in terms of the substantial factor test, intervening cause, remote cause, or "natural and probable consequences," we have repeatedly stated that, "The ultimate test of proximate cause is foreseeability." *512 Killian v. Caza Drilling, Inc. , 2006 WY 42 , ¶ 20, 131 P.3d 975 , 985 (Wyo. 2006). 2018While the issue of proximate cause is sometimes explained in terms of the substantial factor test, intervening cause, remote cause, or "natural and probable consequences," we have repeatedly stated that, "The ultimate test of proximate cause is foreseeability." *512 Killian v. Caza Drilling, Inc. , 2006 WY 42 , ¶ 20, 131 P.3d 975 , 985 (Wyo. 2006). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. McFarlane
green
1 sentence2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Willard R. Sanders
green
1 sentence2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Graham
green
1 sentence2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hovington v. State
green
1 sentence2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Bumpus
green
1 sentence2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i 2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Welch
green
2 sentences2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i 2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Muniz v. State
green
1 sentence2018See United States v. Johnson , 599 F.3d 339 , 345-46 (4th Cir. 2010) (probable cause where officers witnessed transaction that appeared to be drug transaction and defendant tossed capsule when officers approached); United States v. McFarlane , 491 F.3d 53 , 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer saw defendant chasing victim, heard shots fired, and observed defendant try to hide firearm under garbage can liner); United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 , 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1980) (finding probable cause where officers had current and corroborated tip from reliable i | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.