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 1939–1994 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barnette v. Doylegreen2 sentences1994See Barnette v. Doyle, 622 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Wyo.1981) and Brittain v. Booth, 601 P.2d 532, 534 (Wyo.1979). 1994See Barnette v. Doyle, 622 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Wyo.1981) and Brittain v. Booth, 601 P.2d 532, 534 (Wyo.1979). | 2 | 2 |
Brittain v. Boothgreen2 sentences1994See Barnette v. Doyle, 622 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Wyo.1981) and Brittain v. Booth, 601 P.2d 532, 534 (Wyo.1979). 1994See Barnette v. Doyle, 622 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Wyo.1981) and Brittain v. Booth, 601 P.2d 532, 534 (Wyo.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co.green2 sentences1992Co. of California, 13 Cal.3d 804 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 864 , 532 P.2d 1226, 1232 (1975)). [T]he equitable indemnity doctrine originated in the common sense proposition that when two individuals are responsible for a loss, but one of the two is more *578 culpable than the other, it is only fair that the more culpable party should bear a greater share of the loss. 1992Co. of California, 13 Cal.3d 804 , 119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 864 , 532 P.2d 1226, 1232 (1975)). [T]he equitable indemnity doctrine originated in the common sense proposition that when two individuals are responsible for a loss, but one of the two is more *578 culpable than the other, it is only fair that the more culpable party should bear a greater share of the loss. | 1 | 1 |
Danculovich v. Browngreen1 sentence1981Damages resulting from willful and wanton misconduct are not ‘damages for negligence’ as that term is used in § 1-1-109.” (Emphasis added.) Danculovich v. Brown, Wyo., 593 P.2d 187, 194 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnston v. Vukelic
green
2 sentences1981This negligence was defined as: "* * * conduct on the part of a plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection and which is a legally contributing cause, cooperating with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about plaintiff's harm. [Citation] The standard of conduct to which he should conform is the standard to which a reasonable man would conform under like circumstances. [Citation] The words `reasonable man' denote a person exercising those qualities of attention, knowledge, intelligence and judgment which society requires of its members for 1981This negligence was defined as: "* * * conduct on the part of a plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection and which is a legally contributing cause, cooperating with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about plaintiff's harm. [Citation] The standard of conduct to which he should conform is the standard to which a reasonable man would conform under like circumstances. [Citation] The words `reasonable man' denote a person exercising those qualities of attention, knowledge, intelligence and judgment which society requires of its members for | 2 | 1981–1981 |
American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1992The California Supreme Court determined that traditional 100% indemnity recovery suffers from the same "`all-or-nothing' deficiency as the discarded contributory negligence doctrine and falls considerably short of fulfilling [the contributory negligence doctrine's] goal of `a system under which liability for damage will be borne by those whose negligence caused it in direct proportion to their respective fault.'" Id. 146 Cal.Rptr. at 190 , 578 P.2d at 907 ( quoting Li v. Yellow Cab. 1992The California Supreme Court determined that traditional 100% indemnity recovery suffers from the same "`all-or-nothing' deficiency as the discarded contributory negligence doctrine and falls considerably short of fulfilling [the contributory negligence doctrine's] goal of `a system under which liability for damage will be borne by those whose negligence caused it in direct proportion to their respective fault.'" Id. 146 Cal.Rptr. at 190 , 578 P.2d at 907 ( quoting Li v. Yellow Cab. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Woodward v. Haney
green
2 sentences1977The first case in Wyoming involving the construction of § 1-7.2 (supra Note 1), a Wisconsin-type comparative-negligence statute, was Woodward v. Haney, Wyo., 564 P.2d 844 , decided May 18, 1977, wherein we were faced with the issue concerning the propriety of the trial court's refusal to inform the jury of the effect of its answers to the interrogatories in the special verdict. 1977The first case in Wyoming involving the construction of § 1-7.2 (supra Note 1), a Wisconsin-type comparative-negligence statute, was Woodward v. Haney, Wyo., 564 P.2d 844 , decided May 18, 1977, wherein we were faced with the issue concerning the propriety of the trial court’s refusal to inform the jury of the effect of its answers to the interrogatories in the special verdict. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Engel v. Smith
green
1 sentence1939In the opinion in that case the decision in Engel v. Smith, 82 Mich. 1, 7 , was quoted to this effect: “ Tt is a sound rule of law that it is not contributory negligence not to look out for danger when there is no reason to apprehend any. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.