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 1986–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coumas v. Transcontinental Garage, Inc.green2 sentences2006Coumas v. Transcontinental Garage, 68 Wyo. 99 , 230 P.2d 748, 758 (1951). 2006Coumas v. Transcontinental Garage, 68 Wyo. 99 , 230 P.2d 748, 758 (1951). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Seven Lakes Development Co. v. Maxson
green
2 sentences2021Before we construe the deed to determine what type of interest it created, we summarize the relevant privileges and interests in land. [¶10] “A license is a privilege to do certain acts of a temporary character on the land of another which is revocable at the will of a licensor unless a definite time has been specified, or unless it is coupled with an interest.” Seven Lakes, 2006 WY 136, ¶ 11 , 144 P.3d at 1245 (quoting Sammons v. Am. 2021Before we construe the deed to determine what type of interest it created, we summarize the relevant privileges and interests in land. [¶10] “A license is a privilege to do certain acts of a temporary character on the land of another which is revocable at the will of a licensor unless a definite time has been specified, or unless it is coupled with an interest.” Seven Lakes, 2006 WY 136, ¶ 11 , 144 P.3d at 1245 (quoting Sammons v. Am. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms
green
2 sentences2007Similar reasoning obtained a similar result in 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. at 861-62 , 104 S.Ct. at 1104 , where acquittal on a charge of dealing firearms without a license did not bar the government from seeking civil forfeiture of the same firearms, because "the difference in the relative burdens of proof in the eriminal and civil actions precludes the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel." [1183] We accept and adopt the reasoning of 89 Firearms, One Lot Emerald, and Helvering. 2007Similar reasoning obtained a similar result in 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. at 861-62 , 104 S.Ct. at 1104 , where acquittal on a charge of dealing firearms without a license did not bar the government from seeking civil forfeiture of the same firearms, because "the difference in the relative burdens of proof in the eriminal and civil actions precludes the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel." [1183] We accept and adopt the reasoning of 89 Firearms, One Lot Emerald, and Helvering. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Billings v. Wyoming Board of Outfitters & Guides
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 125 , 30 P.3d at 569. [121] The same principle applies in the instant case. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Commonwealth v. Strunk
green
2 sentences1992Their social status, their psychological and physical independence, and their ability fully to participate in peer group activity may all be implicated if this privilege is suspended.” Id. 1992Their social status, their psychological and physical independence, and their ability fully to participate in peer group activity may all be implicated if this privilege is suspended." Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State Ex Rel. Motor Vehicle Division v. Holtz
green
1 sentence1986Motor Vehicle Division v. Holtz, 674 P.2d 732 (Wyo.1983) is controlling and the Motor Vehicle Division does not have the authority to revoke a driver’s license based upon a municipal conviction of hit- and-run?” The Division revoked appellee’s license pursuant to § 31 — 7—126(a)(iii), W.S.1977, (November 1984 Replacement) which stated: 1 “(a) The division shall revoke the license or privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle in the state, upon receipt of a record of conviction of such person of any of the following violations: ll * * * * * “(iii) Failure to stop and render aid when inv | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.