Your MCP token and copy-and-paste setup for Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor and the rest are on the install page — filled in with your real credentials while you are signed in.
Delete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant — emailed to you with setup instructions, and always available under that icon.
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.
9 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1961–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
White v. Wheelergreen2 sentences2019See White, ¶¶ 39–65, 406 P.3d at 1251–56. 2019The court found it undisputed that “over the course of decades, the [three] parcels were used by the owners/lessees of the Burnett Ranch for the occasional grazing of cattle, consistent with cattle grazing over the entirety of the Burnett Ranch.” It found “no evidence to indicate that these disputed parcels were particularly earmarked for cattle grazing—the cattle simply roamed over and onto these unfenced lands as they wandered through the Burnett Ranch” and “[t]here is little or no water for livestock on the disputed parcels.” In a corresponding footnote, the court acknowledged Shane Cross’ | 1 | 1 |
England v. Ally Ong Hinggreen1 sentence2019The court found it undisputed that “over the course of decades, the [three] parcels were used by the owners/lessees of the Burnett Ranch for the occasional grazing of cattle, consistent with cattle grazing over the entirety of the Burnett Ranch.” It found “no evidence to indicate that these disputed parcels were particularly earmarked for cattle grazing—the cattle simply roamed over and onto these unfenced lands as they wandered through the Burnett Ranch” and “[t]here is little or no water for livestock on the disputed parcels.” In a corresponding footnote, the court acknowledged Shane Cross’ | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Eddygreen2 sentences2017See Cook v. Eddy, 2008 WY 111, ¶ 25 , 193 P.3d 705, 713 (Wyo. 2008) (upholding finding of exclusive possession where record title holder failed to conduct any activities of significance on the property). [¶24] The Whites supported their summary judgment motion with the affidavits of Howard and Joslyn White and their sons, Rives White and Jacques White. 3 With regard to the facts relevant to the Whites’ prima facie claim, each of these affidavits alleged essentially the same facts, so we will use Howard White’s affidavit as our reference. [¶25] On the showing of continuous and exclusive possess 2017See Cook v. Eddy, 2008 WY 111, ¶ 25 , 193 P.3d 705, 713 (Wyo. 2008) (upholding finding of exclusive possession where record title holder failed to conduct any activities of significance on the property). [¶24] The Whites supported their summary judgment motion with the affidavits of Howard and Joslyn White and their sons, Rives White and Jacques White. 3 With regard to the facts relevant to the Whites’ prima facie claim, each of these affidavits alleged essentially the same facts, so we will use Howard White’s affidavit as our reference. [¶25] On the showing of continuous and exclusive possess | 1 | 1 |
Espinoza v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Espinoza v. State, 969 P.2d 542, 547 (Wyo.1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
The State of Wyoming v. Jason Tsosie John
green
2 sentences2026Mr. McCalla claims the district court held him to a higher burden of proof when it required him “to proceed first at the hearing by calling witnesses for direct examination, including adverse witnesses, rather than being able to confront those witnesses through cross-examination and test the State’s theory.” He argues that the district court misapplied the procedural framework we adopted in State v. John, 2020 WY 46 , 460 P.3d 1122 (Wyo. 2020), when it concluded his motion to dismiss did not meet his prima facie burden. [¶18] In State v. John, we adopted the procedural framework articulated in 2026Mr. McCalla claims the district court held him to a higher burden of proof when it required him “to proceed first at the hearing by calling witnesses for direct examination, including adverse witnesses, rather than being able to confront those witnesses through cross-examination and test the State’s theory.” He argues that the district court misapplied the procedural framework we adopted in State v. John, 2020 WY 46 , 460 P.3d 1122 (Wyo. 2020), when it concluded his motion to dismiss did not meet his prima facie burden. [¶18] In State v. John, we adopted the procedural framework articulated in | 2 | 2026–2026 |
WILLIE JEFFERSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA
green
2 sentences2026In Jefferson, the Florida appellate court held an accused establishes a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity merely by alleging a facially sufficient claim of justifiable use of force in a pretrial motion to dismiss. 264 So. 3d at 1028–1029. 2026In Jefferson, the Florida appellate court held an accused establishes a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity merely by alleging a facially sufficient claim of justifiable use of force in a pretrial motion to dismiss. 264 So. 3d at 1028–1029. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Braunstein v. Robinson Family Ltd. Partnership LLP
green
1 sentence2017Adverse Possession Elements arid Presumptions [¶17] Adverse possession claims are not favored in the law, Braunstein, j[ 19, 226 P.3d at 836 , and “a presumption in favor of the record title holder exists, unless and until the adverse elaimapt makes, out his prima facie case.” Hillard v. Marshall, 888 P.2d 1266, 1269 (Wyo. 1996). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
O'NEAL v. State
green
1 sentence1991Usage of a prima facie presumption to accomplish a criminal conviction is seldom appropriate, O’Neal v. State, 498 P.2d 1232 (Wyo.1972); State v. Pressler, 16 Wyo. 214 , 92 P. 806 (1907), and never, in my conception, when emergency driving activities might be required. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Bryant v. State
neutral
2 sentences1991Negligence and its more severe subcategory of recklessness encompassing “willful or wanton disregard” are issues of fact which should not be burdened by application of prima facie presumptions. 1 Bryant v. Hornbuckle, 728 P.2d 1132 (Wyo.1986); Timmons v. Reed, 569 P.2d 112 (Wyo.1977); Bryant v. State, 7 Wyo. 311 , 51 P. 879 (1898), reh’g denied 7 Wyo. 311 , 56 P. 596 (1899). 1991Negligence and its more severe subcategory of recklessness encompassing “willful or wanton disregard” are issues of fact which should not be burdened by application of prima facie presumptions. 1 Bryant v. Hornbuckle, 728 P.2d 1132 (Wyo.1986); Timmons v. Reed, 569 P.2d 112 (Wyo.1977); Bryant v. State, 7 Wyo. 311 , 51 P. 879 (1898), reh’g denied 7 Wyo. 311 , 56 P. 596 (1899). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Pressler
neutral
2 sentences1991Usage of a prima facie presumption to accomplish a criminal conviction is seldom appropriate, O’Neal v. State, 498 P.2d 1232 (Wyo.1972); State v. Pressler, 16 Wyo. 214 , 92 P. 806 (1907), and never, in my conception, when emergency driving activities might be required. 1991Usage of a prima facie presumption to accomplish a criminal conviction is seldom appropriate, O’Neal v. State, 498 P.2d 1232 (Wyo.1972); State v. Pressler, 16 Wyo. 214 , 92 P. 806 (1907), and never, in my conception, when emergency driving activities might be required. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Timmons v. Reed
green
1 sentence1991Negligence and its more severe subcategory of recklessness encompassing “willful or wanton disregard” are issues of fact which should not be burdened by application of prima facie presumptions. 1 Bryant v. Hornbuckle, 728 P.2d 1132 (Wyo.1986); Timmons v. Reed, 569 P.2d 112 (Wyo.1977); Bryant v. State, 7 Wyo. 311 , 51 P. 879 (1898), reh’g denied 7 Wyo. 311 , 56 P. 596 (1899). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Bryant v. Hornbuckle
green
1 sentence1991Negligence and its more severe subcategory of recklessness encompassing “willful or wanton disregard” are issues of fact which should not be burdened by application of prima facie presumptions. 1 Bryant v. Hornbuckle, 728 P.2d 1132 (Wyo.1986); Timmons v. Reed, 569 P.2d 112 (Wyo.1977); Bryant v. State, 7 Wyo. 311 , 51 P. 879 (1898), reh’g denied 7 Wyo. 311 , 56 P. 596 (1899). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
West v. Costen
green
1 sentence1989Costen, 558 F.Supp. 564 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Corp. v. Warfield Natural Gas Co.
green
2 sentences1961In discussing the subject, the court in Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Corporation v. Warfield Natural Gas Co., 6 Cir., 137 F.2d 871, 877 , certiorari denied 320 U.S. 800 , 64 S.Ct. 431 , 88 L.Ed. 483 , said: "Rule 56 is a procedural device for the disposition of cases in which there is no material issue of fact and its purpose is to eliminate the formal trial of cases where only questions of law are involved." The petition in this case charged a wrong against defendants but it also contained a statement of the waiver of a preliminary hearing which under the law applicable in this jurisdiction was a prima 1961In discussing the subject, the court in Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Corporation v. Warfield Natural Gas Co., 6 Cir., 137 F.2d 871, 877 , certiorari denied 320 U.S. 800 , 64 S.Ct. 431 , 88 L.Ed. 483 , said: “Rule 56 is a procedural device for the disposition of cases in which there is no material issue of fact and its purpose is to eliminate the formal trial of cases where only questions of law are involved.” The petition in this case charged a wrong against defendants but it also contained a statement of the waiver of a preliminary hearing which under the law applicable in this jurisdiction was a prima | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Adamcik v. Knight
neutral
1 sentence1961A typical holding of the minority is Adamcik v. Knight, Tex.Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 521 , 3 where the court held that proof of ownership of an animal on the highway raises a prima facie presumption of negligence and shifts to the owner the burden of offering evidence. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Wilson Milling Co. v. Commissioner
green
2 sentences1961In discussing the subject, the court in Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Corporation v. Warfield Natural Gas Co., 6 Cir., 137 F.2d 871, 877 , certiorari denied 320 U.S. 800 , 64 S.Ct. 431 , 88 L.Ed. 483 , said: "Rule 56 is a procedural device for the disposition of cases in which there is no material issue of fact and its purpose is to eliminate the formal trial of cases where only questions of law are involved." The petition in this case charged a wrong against defendants but it also contained a statement of the waiver of a preliminary hearing which under the law applicable in this jurisdiction was a prima 1961In discussing the subject, the court in Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Corporation v. Warfield Natural Gas Co., 6 Cir., 137 F.2d 871, 877 , certiorari denied 320 U.S. 800 , 64 S.Ct. 431 , 88 L.Ed. 483 , said: “Rule 56 is a procedural device for the disposition of cases in which there is no material issue of fact and its purpose is to eliminate the formal trial of cases where only questions of law are involved.” The petition in this case charged a wrong against defendants but it also contained a statement of the waiver of a preliminary hearing which under the law applicable in this jurisdiction was a prima | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Kaiser v. United States
green
2 sentences1961In discussing the subject, the court in Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Corporation v. Warfield Natural Gas Co., 6 Cir., 137 F.2d 871, 877 , certiorari denied 320 U.S. 800 , 64 S.Ct. 431 , 88 L.Ed. 483 , said: "Rule 56 is a procedural device for the disposition of cases in which there is no material issue of fact and its purpose is to eliminate the formal trial of cases where only questions of law are involved." The petition in this case charged a wrong against defendants but it also contained a statement of the waiver of a preliminary hearing which under the law applicable in this jurisdiction was a prima 1961In discussing the subject, the court in Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Corporation v. Warfield Natural Gas Co., 6 Cir., 137 F.2d 871, 877 , certiorari denied 320 U.S. 800 , 64 S.Ct. 431 , 88 L.Ed. 483 , said: “Rule 56 is a procedural device for the disposition of cases in which there is no material issue of fact and its purpose is to eliminate the formal trial of cases where only questions of law are involved.” The petition in this case charged a wrong against defendants but it also contained a statement of the waiver of a preliminary hearing which under the law applicable in this jurisdiction was a prima | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.