8 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Noonan v. Noonangreen2 sentences2022Noonan, ¶ 8, 122 P.3d at 966 (reversing because “[t]hat did not happen in this case”). 6 [¶31] In Brush v. Davis, 2013 WY 161 , 315 P.3d 648 (Wyo. 2013), the district court did precisely what Noonan contemplates in a default situation where both parties attend the default hearing. 2013Noonan, ¶ 8, 122 P.3d at 966 , recognized that it may be difficult to obtain the statutory financial affidavit from a defaulting party, but directed the district court to "obtain sufficient financial evidence of both parties' income to make factual determinations, and to comply with the presumptive child support guidelines." In this case, Mother appeared at the default hearing and the district court ordered her to submit a financial affidavit, which she did not do. | 1 | 2 |
Kelly Suzanne Brush, F/K/A Kelly Suzanne Davis v. Roger Ryan Davisgreen2 sentences2022Noonan, ¶ 8, 122 P.3d at 966 (reversing because “[t]hat did not happen in this case”). 6 [¶31] In Brush v. Davis, 2013 WY 161 , 315 P.3d 648 (Wyo. 2013), the district court did precisely what Noonan contemplates in a default situation where both parties attend the default hearing. 2022Noonan, ¶ 8, 122 P.3d at 966 (reversing because “[t]hat did not happen in this case”). 6 [¶31] In Brush v. Davis, 2013 WY 161 , 315 P.3d 648 (Wyo. 2013), the district court did precisely what Noonan contemplates in a default situation where both parties attend the default hearing. | 1 | 2 |
Gehnert v. Stategreen1 sentence2025State Bar v. Crawford-Fink, 2018 WY 130 , ¶ 24, 430 P.3d 323, 332 (Wyo. 2018) (finding an attorney violated Rule 1.3 by failing to obtain complete information about the parties’ assets and liabilities prior to the default hearing, failing to meet with her client to discuss what information would be required for the hearing so the client could obtain that information, preparing a decree that contained erroneous information, and failing to act with reasonable diligence to correct those errors and get the matter concluded); Hinckley, 2022 WY 18 , ¶¶ 25–26, 80, 503 P.3d at 599, 613 (finding a pros | 1 | 1 |
Rocio Esmeralda Mercado Soto Linch v. Ronald B. Linchgreen2 sentences2021Id., ¶¶ 16, 30-35, 361 P.3d at 313, 316-17 . [¶26] We concluded the district court should have held a default hearing, but the error did not render the judgment void. 2021Id., ¶ 34, 361 P.3d at 317 (quoting Spitzer, 777 P.2d at 593 ). [¶27] The salient holding of Linch is the district court cannot enter a form of judgment provided by the non-defaulting party in a divorce action without holding a default hearing to determine the proper relief. | 1 | 1 |
Multiple Resort Ownership Plan, Inc. v. Design-Build-Manage, Inc.green1 sentence2020See Multiple Resort Ownership Plan, ¶ 24, 45 P.3d at 655 (“The burden, however, is upon those seeking more than mere nominal damages to prove their damages.”). | 1 | 1 |
Rosty v. Skajgreen2 sentences2016“Whether a trial court violated a litigant’s right to due process presents a question of law that we.review de novo.” Rosty v. Skaj, 2012 WY 28, ¶ 16 , 272 P.3d 947, 953 (Wyo. 2012). 2016“Whether a trial court violated a litigant’s right to due process presents a question of law that we.review de novo.” Rosty v. Skaj, 2012 WY 28, ¶ 16 , 272 P.3d 947, 953 (Wyo. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Angus Hunt Ranch, Inc. v. Reb, Inc.green1 sentence2002See also Angus Hunt Ranch, Inc. v. REB, Inc 577 P.2d 645, 650 (Wyo.1978). [¶ 9] The Contract provided, in applicable part: 27. | 1 | 1 |
Amoco Production Co. v. Stauffer Chemical Co.green1 sentence2002Co. v. Stauffer Chemical Co., 612 P.2d 463, 465 (Wyo.1980) and cases cited therein) our appellate obligation in cases of this sort is to interpret and construe the contract as a matter of law in order to shed light on the intention and understanding of the parties. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Becket Benedict Hinckley, Wsb 6-3434
green
1 sentence2025State Bar v. Crawford-Fink, 2018 WY 130 , ¶ 24, 430 P.3d 323, 332 (Wyo. 2018) (finding an attorney violated Rule 1.3 by failing to obtain complete information about the parties’ assets and liabilities prior to the default hearing, failing to meet with her client to discuss what information would be required for the hearing so the client could obtain that information, preparing a decree that contained erroneous information, and failing to act with reasonable diligence to correct those errors and get the matter concluded); Hinckley, 2022 WY 18 , ¶¶ 25–26, 80, 503 P.3d at 599, 613 (finding a pros | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights to: NRL, EL and EYL, Minor Children, EL
green
2 sentences2023In re NRL, 2015 WY 27, ¶ 1 , 344 P.3d at 759 . 2023In re NRL, 2015 WY 27, ¶ 1 , 344 P.3d at 759 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Spitzer v. Spitzer
green
1 sentence2021Id., ¶ 34, 361 P.3d at 317 (quoting Spitzer, 777 P.2d at 593 ). [¶27] The salient holding of Linch is the district court cannot enter a form of judgment provided by the non-defaulting party in a divorce action without holding a default hearing to determine the proper relief. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To HLL and KGS, Minor Children: CLB v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services
green
1 sentence2021Id., ¶ 14 n.3, 276 P.3d at 396 n.3. [¶31] In In re HLL, ¶¶ 25, 27-28, 372 P.3d at 190-91 , we stated “with the appropriate notice, default can be entered against a non-appearing parent” in a termination action, but the State is still required to present clear and convincing evidence of a basis for termination under § 14-2-309(a) at the default hearing. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Zmets
green
2 sentences2021Id., ¶ 14 n.3, 276 P.3d at 396 n.3. [¶31] In In re HLL, ¶¶ 25, 27-28, 372 P.3d at 190-91 , we stated “with the appropriate notice, default can be entered against a non-appearing parent” in a termination action, but the State is still required to present clear and convincing evidence of a basis for termination under § 14-2-309(a) at the default hearing. 2021Id., ¶ 14 n.3, 276 P.3d at 396 n.3. [¶31] In In re HLL, ¶¶ 25, 27-28, 372 P.3d at 190-91 , we stated “with the appropriate notice, default can be entered against a non-appearing parent” in a termination action, but the State is still required to present clear and convincing evidence of a basis for termination under § 14-2-309(a) at the default hearing. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.