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 1959–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Compare King v. State, 810 P.2d 119, 123 (Wyo.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Zitterkopf v. Roussalisgreen2 sentences1979The significance of these contradictions is emphasized by the earlier statement in the opinion at page 344 where after discussing the applicability of a foreign statute of limitations, it is said, "It thus becomes of acute importance in the situation at bar to specifically determine for limitation of action purposes, where and when plaintiff's cause of action arose." In my opinion the majority never succeed in this endeavor. [2] Zitterkopf v. Roussalis, 546 P.2d 436, 437 (Wyo. 1976); Jelly v. Dabney, 581 P.2d 622 (Wyo. 1978). [3] Neal v. Wailes, 346 P.2d 132, 134 (Wyo. 1959). [4] I particularl 1979Zitterkopf v. Roussalis, 546 P.2d 436, 437 (Wyo.1976); Jelly v. Dabney, 581 P.2d 622 (Wyo.1978). . | 1 | 1 |
Neal v. Wailesgreen1 sentence1979The significance of these contradictions is emphasized by the earlier statement in the opinion at page 344 where after discussing the applicability of a foreign statute of limitations, it is said, "It thus becomes of acute importance in the situation at bar to specifically determine for limitation of action purposes, where and when plaintiff's cause of action arose." In my opinion the majority never succeed in this endeavor. [2] Zitterkopf v. Roussalis, 546 P.2d 436, 437 (Wyo. 1976); Jelly v. Dabney, 581 P.2d 622 (Wyo. 1978). [3] Neal v. Wailes, 346 P.2d 132, 134 (Wyo. 1959). [4] I particularl | 1 | 1 |
State v. LeBarrongreen2 sentences1959To say that the Glidden case is analogous to the situation at bar would be a long step. *524 The case of State v. Le Barron, 24 Wyo. 519 , 162 P. 265, 266, 267 , Ann.Cas., 1918D 998, is quoted as authority for plaintiff’s position here in the statement: “* * * It has also been held that: “ ‘The Legislature cannot take what might be termed a natural class of persons, split that class in two, and then arbitrarily designate the dissevered fractions of the original unit as two classes, and thereupon enact different rules for the government of each.’ 6 R.C.L. § 375; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163 , 31 1959To say that the Glidden case is analogous to the situation at bar would be a long step. *524 The case of State v. Le Barron, 24 Wyo. 519 , 162 P. 265, 266, 267 , Ann.Cas., 1918D 998, is quoted as authority for plaintiff’s position here in the statement: “* * * It has also been held that: “ ‘The Legislature cannot take what might be termed a natural class of persons, split that class in two, and then arbitrarily designate the dissevered fractions of the original unit as two classes, and thereupon enact different rules for the government of each.’ 6 R.C.L. § 375; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163 , 31 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Poddar
green
2 sentences1983People v. Poddar, 1974, 10 Cal.3d 750 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 , 518 P.2d 342 ; State v. Santiago, 1973, 55 Haw. 162 , 516 P.2d 1256 ; State v. Green, 1975, 271 Or. 153 , 531 P.2d 245 ; In re Miller, 1973, 33 Cal. App.3d 1005 , 109 Cal. Rptr. 648 ; Johnson v. State, 1970, 226 Ga. 511 , 175 S.E.2d 840 ; State v. Nichols, 1965, 3 Ohio App.2d 182 , 209 N.E.2d 750 . 1983People v. Poddar, 1974, 10 Cal.3d 750 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 , 518 P.2d 342 ; State v. Santiago, 1973, 55 Haw. 162 , 516 P.2d 1256 ; State v. Green, 1975, 271 Or. 153 , 531 P.2d 245 ; In re Miller, 1973, 33 Cal. App.3d 1005 , 109 Cal. Rptr. 648 ; Johnson v. State, 1970, 226 Ga. 511 , 175 S.E.2d 840 ; State v. Nichols, 1965, 3 Ohio App.2d 182 , 209 N.E.2d 750 . | 2 | 1978–1983 |
In Re Miller
green
2 sentences1983People v. Poddar, 1974, 10 Cal.3d 750 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 , 518 P.2d 342 ; State v. Santiago, 1973, 55 Haw. 162 , 516 P.2d 1256 ; State v. Green, 1975, 271 Or. 153 , 531 P.2d 245 ; In re Miller, 1973, 33 Cal. App.3d 1005 , 109 Cal. Rptr. 648 ; Johnson v. State, 1970, 226 Ga. 511 , 175 S.E.2d 840 ; State v. Nichols, 1965, 3 Ohio App.2d 182 , 209 N.E.2d 750 . 1983People v. Poddar, 1974, 10 Cal.3d 750 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 , 518 P.2d 342 ; State v. Santiago, 1973, 55 Haw. 162 , 516 P.2d 1256 ; State v. Green, 1975, 271 Or. 153 , 531 P.2d 245 ; In re Miller, 1973, 33 Cal. App.3d 1005 , 109 Cal. Rptr. 648 ; Johnson v. State, 1970, 226 Ga. 511 , 175 S.E.2d 840 ; State v. Nichols, 1965, 3 Ohio App.2d 182 , 209 N.E.2d 750 . | 2 | 1978–1983 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences1983People v. Poddar, 1974, 10 Cal.3d 750 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 , 518 P.2d 342 ; State v. Santiago, 1973, 55 Haw. 162 , 516 P.2d 1256 ; State v. Green, 1975, 271 Or. 153 , 531 P.2d 245 ; In re Miller, 1973, 33 Cal. App.3d 1005 , 109 Cal. Rptr. 648 ; Johnson v. State, 1970, 226 Ga. 511 , 175 S.E.2d 840 ; State v. Nichols, 1965, 3 Ohio App.2d 182 , 209 N.E.2d 750 . 1983People v. Poddar, 1974, 10 Cal.3d 750 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 , 518 P.2d 342 ; State v. Santiago, 1973, 55 Haw. 162 , 516 P.2d 1256 ; State v. Green, 1975, 271 Or. 153 , 531 P.2d 245 ; In re Miller, 1973, 33 Cal. App.3d 1005 , 109 Cal. Rptr. 648 ; Johnson v. State, 1970, 226 Ga. 511 , 175 S.E.2d 840 ; State v. Nichols, 1965, 3 Ohio App.2d 182 , 209 N.E.2d 750 . | 2 | 1978–1983 |
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences1983People v. Poddar, 1974, 10 Cal.3d 750 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 , 518 P.2d 342 ; State v. Santiago, 1973, 55 Haw. 162 , 516 P.2d 1256 ; State v. Green, 1975, 271 Or. 153 , 531 P.2d 245 ; In re Miller, 1973, 33 Cal. App.3d 1005 , 109 Cal. Rptr. 648 ; Johnson v. State, 1970, 226 Ga. 511 , 175 S.E.2d 840 ; State v. Nichols, 1965, 3 Ohio App.2d 182 , 209 N.E.2d 750 . 1983People v. Poddar, 1974, 10 Cal.3d 750 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 , 518 P.2d 342 ; State v. Santiago, 1973, 55 Haw. 162 , 516 P.2d 1256 ; State v. Green, 1975, 271 Or. 153 , 531 P.2d 245 ; In re Miller, 1973, 33 Cal. App.3d 1005 , 109 Cal. Rptr. 648 ; Johnson v. State, 1970, 226 Ga. 511 , 175 S.E.2d 840 ; State v. Nichols, 1965, 3 Ohio App.2d 182 , 209 N.E.2d 750 . | 2 | 1978–1983 |
State v. Santiago
green
2 sentences1983People v. Poddar, 1974, 10 Cal.3d 750 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 , 518 P.2d 342 ; State v. Santiago, 1973, 55 Haw. 162 , 516 P.2d 1256 ; State v. Green, 1975, 271 Or. 153 , 531 P.2d 245 ; In re Miller, 1973, 33 Cal. App.3d 1005 , 109 Cal. Rptr. 648 ; Johnson v. State, 1970, 226 Ga. 511 , 175 S.E.2d 840 ; State v. Nichols, 1965, 3 Ohio App.2d 182 , 209 N.E.2d 750 . 1983People v. Poddar, 1974, 10 Cal.3d 750 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 , 518 P.2d 342 ; State v. Santiago, 1973, 55 Haw. 162 , 516 P.2d 1256 ; State v. Green, 1975, 271 Or. 153 , 531 P.2d 245 ; In re Miller, 1973, 33 Cal. App.3d 1005 , 109 Cal. Rptr. 648 ; Johnson v. State, 1970, 226 Ga. 511 , 175 S.E.2d 840 ; State v. Nichols, 1965, 3 Ohio App.2d 182 , 209 N.E.2d 750 . | 2 | 1978–1983 |
State v. Nichols
green
2 sentences1983People v. Poddar, 1974, 10 Cal.3d 750 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 , 518 P.2d 342 ; State v. Santiago, 1973, 55 Haw. 162 , 516 P.2d 1256 ; State v. Green, 1975, 271 Or. 153 , 531 P.2d 245 ; In re Miller, 1973, 33 Cal. App.3d 1005 , 109 Cal. Rptr. 648 ; Johnson v. State, 1970, 226 Ga. 511 , 175 S.E.2d 840 ; State v. Nichols, 1965, 3 Ohio App.2d 182 , 209 N.E.2d 750 . 1983People v. Poddar, 1974, 10 Cal.3d 750 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 910 , 518 P.2d 342 ; State v. Santiago, 1973, 55 Haw. 162 , 516 P.2d 1256 ; State v. Green, 1975, 271 Or. 153 , 531 P.2d 245 ; In re Miller, 1973, 33 Cal. App.3d 1005 , 109 Cal. Rptr. 648 ; Johnson v. State, 1970, 226 Ga. 511 , 175 S.E.2d 840 ; State v. Nichols, 1965, 3 Ohio App.2d 182 , 209 N.E.2d 750 . | 2 | 1978–1983 |
Munson v. State
green
2 sentences1990Munson v. State, 770 P.2d 1093 (Wyo.1989). 1990Munson v. State, 770 P.2d 1093 (Wyo. 1989). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
United States Fire Insurance Co. v. McCormick
green
2 sentences1982United States Fire Insurance Co. v. McCormick, 286 Ala. 531, 534-536 , 243 So.2d 367, 373-375 ; Marwell Const., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, Lon., Alaska, 465 P.2d 298, 304-305 ; Emp. 1982United States Fire Insurance Co. v. McCormick, 286 Ala. 531, 534-536 , 243 So.2d 367, 373-375 ; Marwell Const., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, Lon., Alaska, 465 P.2d 298, 304-305 ; Emp. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Marwell Construction, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London
green
2 sentences1982United States Fire Insurance Co. v. McCormick, 286 Ala. 531, 534-536 , 243 So.2d 367, 373-375 ; Marwell Const., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, Lon., Alaska, 465 P.2d 298, 304-305 ; Emp. 1982United States Fire Insurance Co. v. McCormick, 286 Ala. 531, 534-536 , 243 So.2d 367, 373-375 ; Marwell Const., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, Lon., Alaska, 465 P.2d 298, 304-305 ; Emp. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Snell v. Ruppert
green
2 sentences1981Such an estoppel result may well be particularly appropriate in the situation at bar in the light of the fact that plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest, as revealed by the record, are closely related by blood and marriage." 582 P.2d at 918 . 1981Such an estoppel result may well be particularly appropriate in the situation at bar in the light of the fact that plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest, as revealed by the record, are closely related by blood and marriage.” 582 P.2d at 918 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Jelly v. Dabney
green
2 sentences1979The significance of these contradictions is emphasized by the earlier statement in the opinion at page 344 where after discussing the applicability of a foreign statute of limitations, it is said, "It thus becomes of acute importance in the situation at bar to specifically determine for limitation of action purposes, where and when plaintiff's cause of action arose." In my opinion the majority never succeed in this endeavor. [2] Zitterkopf v. Roussalis, 546 P.2d 436, 437 (Wyo. 1976); Jelly v. Dabney, 581 P.2d 622 (Wyo. 1978). [3] Neal v. Wailes, 346 P.2d 132, 134 (Wyo. 1959). [4] I particularl 1979Zitterkopf v. Roussalis, 546 P.2d 436, 437 (Wyo.1976); Jelly v. Dabney, 581 P.2d 622 (Wyo.1978). . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Culver v. Sekulich
green
1 sentence1974In Culver v. Sekulich, supra, 344 P.2d at 151 , we indicated it is sufficient if there are stated such facts as the proof fairly tends to establish and fairly presents the party’s claim or theory. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Julow
green
2 sentences1959To say that the Glidden case is analogous to the situation at bar would be a long step. *524 The case of State v. Le Barron, 24 Wyo. 519 , 162 P. 265, 266, 267 , Ann.Cas., 1918D 998, is quoted as authority for plaintiff’s position here in the statement: “* * * It has also been held that: “ ‘The Legislature cannot take what might be termed a natural class of persons, split that class in two, and then arbitrarily designate the dissevered fractions of the original unit as two classes, and thereupon enact different rules for the government of each.’ 6 R.C.L. § 375; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163 , 31 1959To say that the Glidden case is analogous to the situation at bar would be a long step. *524 The case of State v. Le Barron, 24 Wyo. 519 , 162 P. 265, 266, 267 , Ann.Cas., 1918D 998, is quoted as authority for plaintiff’s position here in the statement: “* * * It has also been held that: “ ‘The Legislature cannot take what might be termed a natural class of persons, split that class in two, and then arbitrarily designate the dissevered fractions of the original unit as two classes, and thereupon enact different rules for the government of each.’ 6 R.C.L. § 375; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163 , 31 | 1 | 1959–1959 |
State v. Miksicek
green
2 sentences1959To say that the Glidden case is analogous to the situation at bar would be a long step. *524 The case of State v. Le Barron, 24 Wyo. 519 , 162 P. 265, 266, 267 , Ann.Cas., 1918D 998, is quoted as authority for plaintiff’s position here in the statement: “* * * It has also been held that: “ ‘The Legislature cannot take what might be termed a natural class of persons, split that class in two, and then arbitrarily designate the dissevered fractions of the original unit as two classes, and thereupon enact different rules for the government of each.’ 6 R.C.L. § 375; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163 , 31 1959To say that the Glidden case is analogous to the situation at bar would be a long step. *524 The case of State v. Le Barron, 24 Wyo. 519 , 162 P. 265, 266, 267 , Ann.Cas., 1918D 998, is quoted as authority for plaintiff’s position here in the statement: “* * * It has also been held that: “ ‘The Legislature cannot take what might be termed a natural class of persons, split that class in two, and then arbitrarily designate the dissevered fractions of the original unit as two classes, and thereupon enact different rules for the government of each.’ 6 R.C.L. § 375; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163 , 31 | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.