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 1992–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coleman v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Coleman v. State, 843 P.2d 558, 559-60 (Wyo.1992) (internal citations and footnote omitted). 2006Coleman v. State, 843 P.2d 558, 559-60 (Wyo.1992) (internal citations and footnote omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Martin v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Tombroek v. State, 2009 WY 126, ¶ 9 , 217 P.3d 806, 810 (Wyo.2009); Martin v. State, 2007 WY 76, ¶ 27 , 157 P.3d 923, 927 (Wyo.2007) (second element of the test was satisfied because the declarant was subject to cross examination about, the incident). [T100] Under the third element of Rule 801(d)(1)(B), the statements must be "consistent" with the declarant's trial testimony. 2016See Tombroek v. State, 2009 WY 126, ¶ 9 , 217 P.3d 806, 810 (Wyo.2009); Martin v. State, 2007 WY 76, ¶ 27 , 157 P.3d 923, 927 (Wyo.2007) (second element of the test was satisfied because the declarant was subject to cross examination about, the incident). [T100] Under the third element of Rule 801(d)(1)(B), the statements must be "consistent" with the declarant's trial testimony. | 1 | 1 |
Tombroek v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Tombroek v. State, 2009 WY 126, ¶ 9 , 217 P.3d 806, 810 (Wyo.2009); Martin v. State, 2007 WY 76, ¶ 27 , 157 P.3d 923, 927 (Wyo.2007) (second element of the test was satisfied because the declarant was subject to cross examination about, the incident). [T100] Under the third element of Rule 801(d)(1)(B), the statements must be "consistent" with the declarant's trial testimony. 2016See Tombroek v. State, 2009 WY 126, ¶ 9 , 217 P.3d 806, 810 (Wyo.2009); Martin v. State, 2007 WY 76, ¶ 27 , 157 P.3d 923, 927 (Wyo.2007) (second element of the test was satisfied because the declarant was subject to cross examination about, the incident). [T100] Under the third element of Rule 801(d)(1)(B), the statements must be "consistent" with the declarant's trial testimony. | 1 | 1 |
Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.green1 sentence2010Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 2008 WY 102, 128 , 75 P.3d 640, 653 (Wyo.2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Loya v. Wyoming Partners of Jackson Hole, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004Loya, 2001 WY 124, ¶ 22 , 35 P.3d at 1254 (quoting Worley, 1 P.3d at 624). 2004Loya, 2001 WY 124, ¶ 22 , 35 P.3d at 1254 (quoting Worley, 1 P.3d at 624). | 2 | 2003–2004 |
Roussalis v. Wyoming Medical Center, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010"The party who is asserting promissory estoppel is assigned the burden of establishing all of the elements of the doctrine with a standard of strict proof." Roussalis, 4 P.3d at 258 , quoting B & W Glass, 829 P.2d at 819 . [127] In addition to establishing the existence of a clear and definite promise, a plaintiff must also show "action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character" to satisfy the second element of the doctrine. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
B & W Glass, Inc. v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc.
green
1 sentence2010"The party who is asserting promissory estoppel is assigned the burden of establishing all of the elements of the doctrine with a standard of strict proof." Roussalis, 4 P.3d at 258 , quoting B & W Glass, 829 P.2d at 819 . [127] In addition to establishing the existence of a clear and definite promise, a plaintiff must also show "action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character" to satisfy the second element of the doctrine. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Proffit v. State
green
1 sentence2010Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 2008 WY 102, 128 , 75 P.3d 640, 653 (Wyo.2008). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State Department of Revenue & Taxation v. Pacificorp
green
1 sentence2004A judgment declaring the regulation invalid would prevent its enforcement and allow Pedro/Aspen to continue to sell property and thus, “have the force and effect of a final judgment in law or decree in equity upon the rights, status or other legal relationships of one or more of the real par *419 ties in interest.” Pacificorp, 872 P.2d at 1168 . [¶ 23] In an apparent effort to show the fourth element (proceedings are genuinely adversary) was not met, Natrona County suggests the matter was not truly adversary because Pedro/Aspen submitted an application in the “spirit of cooperation.” However, | 1 | 2004–2004 |
City of Powell v. Busboom
green
2 sentences2003Id., 2002 WY 58 , 1 10, 44 P.3d at 66-67 . [T28] In addition to establishing the existence of a clear and definite promise, a plaintiff must also show " 'action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character'" to satisfy the second element of the doctrine. 2003Id., 2002 WY 58 , 1 10, 44 P.3d at 66-67 . [T28] In addition to establishing the existence of a clear and definite promise, a plaintiff must also show " 'action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character'" to satisfy the second element of the doctrine. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Worley v. Wyoming Bottling Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2003Loya, 2001 WY 124, ¶ 22 , 35 P.3d at 1254 (quoting Worley, 1 P.3d at 624 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Stephen Scott Crooker
green
1 sentence1992To prevent a possible deluge of unnecessary court proceedings, the second element of the test allows a trial court to deny a hearing if the defendant’s allegations are contradicted by the record, are inherently unreliable, or are merely conclusions rather than statements of fact. 3 Id.; United States v. Crooker, 729 F.2d 889 (1st Cir.1984). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.