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.
8 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schmitz v. State, Department of Workforce Services, Labor Standardsgreen2 sentences2018See generally , Schmitz v. Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2017 WY 143 , ¶ 21, n.4, 406 P.3d 312 , 317, n.4 (Wyo. 2017) (citing Vance v. City of Laramie, 2016 WY 106 , ¶ 42, 382 P.3d 1104 , 1114 (Wyo. 2016) ) (parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court by agreement or waiver). 2018See generally , Schmitz v. Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2017 WY 143 , ¶ 21, n.4, 406 P.3d 312 , 317, n.4 (Wyo. 2017) (citing Vance v. City of Laramie, 2016 WY 106 , ¶ 42, 382 P.3d 1104 , 1114 (Wyo. 2016) ) (parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court by agreement or waiver). | 1 | 1 |
Bret Vance v. City of Laramiegreen2 sentences2018See generally , Schmitz v. Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2017 WY 143 , ¶ 21, n.4, 406 P.3d 312 , 317, n.4 (Wyo. 2017) (citing Vance v. City of Laramie, 2016 WY 106 , ¶ 42, 382 P.3d 1104 , 1114 (Wyo. 2016) ) (parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court by agreement or waiver). 2018See generally , Schmitz v. Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2017 WY 143 , ¶ 21, n.4, 406 P.3d 312 , 317, n.4 (Wyo. 2017) (citing Vance v. City of Laramie, 2016 WY 106 , ¶ 42, 382 P.3d 1104 , 1114 (Wyo. 2016) ) (parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court by agreement or waiver). | 1 | 1 |
Western National Bank of Lovell v. Moncurgreen2 sentences2007See Moncur, 624 P.2d at 771-72 . 2007See Moneur, 624 P.2d at 771-72 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Thompsongreen2 sentences1993People v. Thompson, 145 Cal.App.3d 918 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 782, 788 (1983). 1993People v. Thompson, 145 Cal.App.3d 918 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 782, 788 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oedekoven v. Oedekoven
green
1 sentence2020(Divorce) § 300(3), p. 382, where it is said: “The provisions of a property settlement agreement, which is complete in itself and is merely referred to in the decree or approved by the court but not actually made a part of the decree, cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings. * * *” Oedekoven, 538 P.2d at 1293-94 . [¶54] Father’s reliance on Oedekoven is misplaced. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Amoco Production Co. v. EM Nominee Partnership Co.
green
1 sentence2020Co. v. EM Nominee Partnership Co., 886 P.2d 265 , 267–68 (Wyo. 1994)). 5 H&P does not argue Appellees purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of causing important consequences in Wyoming. 4 that parts one and two of the three-part test are satisfied. 6 Relevant to these points, H&P’s complaint and Mr. Hannam’s affidavit state: • Mark Bristow, then the Chief Executive Officer of Randgold, requested that [Mr. Hannam] travel to Jackson, Wyoming, where [Mr. Bristow] lives part-time, to prepare for and participate in a more intensive series of merger discussions with representatives of Bar | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Polo Ranch Company v. City of Cheyenne
green
1 sentence2003NOTES [*] Chief Justice at time of oral argument. [1] The Agreement was also executed by Bell's wife, Ella Marie Bell, who was "joined to release any interest she may have in the subject premises for the purposes of this agreement." [2] This recitation of facts is based upon the record before us, as well as this court's previous opinion in Polo Ranch Co. v. City of Cheyenne, 969 P.2d 132 (Wyo.1998) involving the same parties as are involved in the instant matter. [3] This action will be hereinafter referred to as the "previous litigation." [4] Given this court's conclusion on this issue, it is | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Horvath v. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co.
green
2 sentences1986Here, as in the Lea case, appellant also argues that the stipulated agreement is void, citing Horvath v. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co., 58 Wyo. 211 , 131 P.2d 315 (1942). 1986Here, as in the Lea case, appellant also argues that the stipulated agreement is void, citing Horvath v. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co., 58 Wyo. 211 , 131 P.2d 315 (1942). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Wright v. Stidham
green
2 sentences1975(Divorce) § 300(3), p. 382, where it is said: “The provisions of a property settlement agreement, which is complete in itself and is merely referred to in the decree or approved by the court but not actually made a part of the decree, cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings. * * ‡ » The rule as stated is fortified by the following cases: Shepherd v. Shepherd, 1967, 223 Ga. 609 , 157 S.E.2d 268 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1967, 270 N.C. 253 , 154 S.E.2d 71 ; Horcasitas v. House, 1965, 75 N.M. 317 , 404 P.2d 140 ; Wright v. Stidham, 1964, 95 Ariz. 316 , 390 P.2d 107 ; and Stanley v. Stanley, 1946 1975(Divorce) § 300(3), p. 382, where it is said: “The provisions of a property settlement agreement, which is complete in itself and is merely referred to in the decree or approved by the court but not actually made a part of the decree, cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings. * * ‡ » The rule as stated is fortified by the following cases: Shepherd v. Shepherd, 1967, 223 Ga. 609 , 157 S.E.2d 268 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1967, 270 N.C. 253 , 154 S.E.2d 71 ; Horcasitas v. House, 1965, 75 N.M. 317 , 404 P.2d 140 ; Wright v. Stidham, 1964, 95 Ariz. 316 , 390 P.2d 107 ; and Stanley v. Stanley, 1946 | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Horcasitas v. House
green
2 sentences1975(Divorce) § 300(3), p. 382, where it is said: “The provisions of a property settlement agreement, which is complete in itself and is merely referred to in the decree or approved by the court but not actually made a part of the decree, cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings. * * ‡ » The rule as stated is fortified by the following cases: Shepherd v. Shepherd, 1967, 223 Ga. 609 , 157 S.E.2d 268 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1967, 270 N.C. 253 , 154 S.E.2d 71 ; Horcasitas v. House, 1965, 75 N.M. 317 , 404 P.2d 140 ; Wright v. Stidham, 1964, 95 Ariz. 316 , 390 P.2d 107 ; and Stanley v. Stanley, 1946 1975(Divorce) § 300(3), p. 382, where it is said: “The provisions of a property settlement agreement, which is complete in itself and is merely referred to in the decree or approved by the court but not actually made a part of the decree, cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings. * * ‡ » The rule as stated is fortified by the following cases: Shepherd v. Shepherd, 1967, 223 Ga. 609 , 157 S.E.2d 268 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1967, 270 N.C. 253 , 154 S.E.2d 71 ; Horcasitas v. House, 1965, 75 N.M. 317 , 404 P.2d 140 ; Wright v. Stidham, 1964, 95 Ariz. 316 , 390 P.2d 107 ; and Stanley v. Stanley, 1946 | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Stanley v. . Stanley
green
2 sentences1975(Divorce) § 300(3), p. 382, where it is said: “The provisions of a property settlement agreement, which is complete in itself and is merely referred to in the decree or approved by the court but not actually made a part of the decree, cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings. * * ‡ » The rule as stated is fortified by the following cases: Shepherd v. Shepherd, 1967, 223 Ga. 609 , 157 S.E.2d 268 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1967, 270 N.C. 253 , 154 S.E.2d 71 ; Horcasitas v. House, 1965, 75 N.M. 317 , 404 P.2d 140 ; Wright v. Stidham, 1964, 95 Ariz. 316 , 390 P.2d 107 ; and Stanley v. Stanley, 1946 1975(Divorce) § 300(3), p. 382, where it is said: “The provisions of a property settlement agreement, which is complete in itself and is merely referred to in the decree or approved by the court but not actually made a part of the decree, cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings. * * ‡ » The rule as stated is fortified by the following cases: Shepherd v. Shepherd, 1967, 223 Ga. 609 , 157 S.E.2d 268 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1967, 270 N.C. 253 , 154 S.E.2d 71 ; Horcasitas v. House, 1965, 75 N.M. 317 , 404 P.2d 140 ; Wright v. Stidham, 1964, 95 Ariz. 316 , 390 P.2d 107 ; and Stanley v. Stanley, 1946 | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Shepherd v. Shepherd
green
2 sentences1975(Divorce) § 300(3), p. 382, where it is said: “The provisions of a property settlement agreement, which is complete in itself and is merely referred to in the decree or approved by the court but not actually made a part of the decree, cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings. * * ‡ » The rule as stated is fortified by the following cases: Shepherd v. Shepherd, 1967, 223 Ga. 609 , 157 S.E.2d 268 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1967, 270 N.C. 253 , 154 S.E.2d 71 ; Horcasitas v. House, 1965, 75 N.M. 317 , 404 P.2d 140 ; Wright v. Stidham, 1964, 95 Ariz. 316 , 390 P.2d 107 ; and Stanley v. Stanley, 1946 1975(Divorce) § 300(3), p. 382, where it is said: “The provisions of a property settlement agreement, which is complete in itself and is merely referred to in the decree or approved by the court but not actually made a part of the decree, cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings. * * ‡ » The rule as stated is fortified by the following cases: Shepherd v. Shepherd, 1967, 223 Ga. 609 , 157 S.E.2d 268 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1967, 270 N.C. 253 , 154 S.E.2d 71 ; Horcasitas v. House, 1965, 75 N.M. 317 , 404 P.2d 140 ; Wright v. Stidham, 1964, 95 Ariz. 316 , 390 P.2d 107 ; and Stanley v. Stanley, 1946 | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Mitchell v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1975(Divorce) § 300(3), p. 382, where it is said: “The provisions of a property settlement agreement, which is complete in itself and is merely referred to in the decree or approved by the court but not actually made a part of the decree, cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings. * * ‡ » The rule as stated is fortified by the following cases: Shepherd v. Shepherd, 1967, 223 Ga. 609 , 157 S.E.2d 268 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1967, 270 N.C. 253 , 154 S.E.2d 71 ; Horcasitas v. House, 1965, 75 N.M. 317 , 404 P.2d 140 ; Wright v. Stidham, 1964, 95 Ariz. 316 , 390 P.2d 107 ; and Stanley v. Stanley, 1946 1975(Divorce) § 300(3), p. 382, where it is said: “The provisions of a property settlement agreement, which is complete in itself and is merely referred to in the decree or approved by the court but not actually made a part of the decree, cannot be enforced by contempt proceedings. * * ‡ » The rule as stated is fortified by the following cases: Shepherd v. Shepherd, 1967, 223 Ga. 609 , 157 S.E.2d 268 ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1967, 270 N.C. 253 , 154 S.E.2d 71 ; Horcasitas v. House, 1965, 75 N.M. 317 , 404 P.2d 140 ; Wright v. Stidham, 1964, 95 Ariz. 316 , 390 P.2d 107 ; and Stanley v. Stanley, 1946 | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.