9 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1929–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cor v. Sinclair Services Co.green2 sentences2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” 2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” | 2 | 2 |
Berg v. TORRINGTON LIVESTOCK CATTLE CO.green2 sentences2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” 2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” | 2 | 2 |
Bruckner v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” 2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” | 2 | 2 |
Reichert v. Daughertygreen2 sentences2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” 2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest Of: Fp, Sp, Tp and Xp, Minor Children, Cp v. Emc Iii, Dc and the State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” 2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” | 2 | 2 |
Nathan Wageman v. Destin Harrellgreen2 sentences2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” 2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” | 2 | 2 |
Finch v. Pomeroygreen2 sentences2023See Finch v. Pomeroy, 2006 WY 24 , ¶¶ 2–3, 130 P.3d 437 , 437–38 (Wyo. 2006); Cor v. Sinclair Servs. 2023See Finch v. Pomeroy, 2006 WY 24 , ¶¶ 2–3, 130 P.3d 437 , 437–38 (Wyo. 2006); Cor v. Sinclair Servs. | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest of: BFW, a Minor Child, DW and KW v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” 2023See Wageman v. Harrell, 2020 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 476 P.3d 657 , 659– 60 (Wyo. 2020) (Court does not address argument when appellant “provide[d] no cogent argument or authority”); Reichert v. Daugherty, 2018 WY 103 , ¶ 28, 425 P.3d 990, 997 (Wyo. 2018) (Court refuses to address argument when appellants cite only to one statute and “no other authority and make no cogent argument”); Bruckner v. State, 2018 WY 51 , ¶ 17, 417 P.3d 178, 182 (Wyo. 2018) (“[This] Court has a long-standing precedent of summarily affirming cases or issues not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authoritative citation.” | 2 | 2 |
Joshua James Anderle v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2024“We have discretion whether to summarily affirm when a brief is deficient under the rules of appellate procedure.” Burke v. State, 2024 WY 33, ¶ 8 , 545 P.3d 440, 442 (Wyo. 2024) (citing Anderle v. State, 2022 WY 161, ¶ 18 , 522 P.3d 151, 154 (Wyo. 2022)). 2024“We have discretion whether to summarily affirm when a brief is deficient under the rules of appellate procedure.” Burke v. State, 2024 WY 33, ¶ 8 , 545 P.3d 440, 442 (Wyo. 2024) (citing Anderle v. State, 2022 WY 161, ¶ 18 , 522 P.3d 151, 154 (Wyo. 2022)). | 1 | 1 |
Circle C Resources v. Charlene Hasslergreen2 sentences2024Circle C Res. v. Hassler, 2023 WY 54, ¶ 8 , 530 P.3d 288, 292 (Wyo. 2023). 2024Circle C Res. v. Hassler, 2023 WY 54, ¶ 8 , 530 P.3d 288, 292 (Wyo. 2023). | 1 | 1 |
J. William Winney, Jr. v. Michael Troy Jerupgreen2 sentences2024Winney v. Jerup, 2023 WY 113, ¶ 30 , 539 P.3d 77, 86 (Wyo. 2023) (“[W]e have recognized that we may affirm a district court decision on any basis supported by the record.”). [¶13] A stipulated divorce decree is treated as a contract. 2024Winney v. Jerup, 2023 WY 113, ¶ 30 , 539 P.3d 77, 86 (Wyo. 2023) (“[W]e have recognized that we may affirm a district court decision on any basis supported by the record.”). [¶13] A stipulated divorce decree is treated as a contract. | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Young v. State, 2002 WY 68, ¶ 9 , 46 P.3d 295, 297 (Wyo. 2002) (declining to summarily affirm although pro se defendant’s brief was deficient in certain respects). 2024See, e.g., Young v. State, 2002 WY 68, ¶ 9 , 46 P.3d 295, 297 (Wyo. 2002) (declining to summarily affirm although pro se defendant’s brief was deficient in certain respects). | 1 | 1 |
Zachary Ryan Burke v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2024“We have discretion whether to summarily affirm when a brief is deficient under the rules of appellate procedure.” Burke v. State, 2024 WY 33, ¶ 8 , 545 P.3d 440, 442 (Wyo. 2024) (citing Anderle v. State, 2022 WY 161, ¶ 18 , 522 P.3d 151, 154 (Wyo. 2022)). 2024“We have discretion whether to summarily affirm when a brief is deficient under the rules of appellate procedure.” Burke v. State, 2024 WY 33, ¶ 8 , 545 P.3d 440, 442 (Wyo. 2024) (citing Anderle v. State, 2022 WY 161, ¶ 18 , 522 P.3d 151, 154 (Wyo. 2022)). | 1 | 1 |
Mandi Lynn Kleinpeter, N/K/A Mandi Lynn Deleon v. Dedrick Ray Kleinpetergreen1 sentence2017See Kleinpeter, ¶ 11, 397 P.3d at 193 (contempt may only be found if a violation of a clear and specific order is shown). [¶24] The district court did not specifically address Husband’s claim that Wife delayed the property’s sale by denying access to the home by his realtors, but that lack of a specific finding does not undermine the court’s contempt ruling. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bell v. Wilson
green
2 sentences1929Bell v. Wilson, 172 Cal. 123 , 155 P. 625 . 1929Bell v. Wilson, 172 Cal. 123 , 155 P. 625 . | 2 | 1929–1929 |
Byrnes v. Harper
green
1 sentence2024Id. [¶11] Wife lists the following deficiencies in Husband’s brief: 1) failing to attach a copy of the judgment, decision letter, and statement of costs; 2) failing to include his telephone number; 3) using the wrong font size; and 4) improperly stating the name of an out-of-state 3 attorney who was not admitted pro hac vice. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Robert Ray Schneider v. The State of Wyoming
green
2 sentences2022We will therefore only consider the sworn statements in the motions, and we will not consider the hearsay statements contained in the attachments. 8 “Prima facie means ‘[s]uch evidence as is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient.’” Schneider v. State, 2022 WY 31 , ¶ 15 n. 2, 505 P.3d at 595 n. 2 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Wyo. 2022We will therefore only consider the sworn statements in the motions, and we will not consider the hearsay statements contained in the attachments. 8 “Prima facie means ‘[s]uch evidence as is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient.’” Schneider v. State, 2022 WY 31 , ¶ 15 n. 2, 505 P.3d at 595 n. 2 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Wyo. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Pacific General Contractors, Inc. v. Slate Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2000Pacific General Contractors v. Slate Const. Co., 196 Or. 608 , 251 P.2d 454 (1952). 2000Pacific General Contractors v. Slate Const. Co., 196 Or. 608 , 251 P.2d 454 (1952). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.