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 1995–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Warner v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Yet, “[t]he trial court is also in the best position to assess the prejudicial impact of such error.” Id. 2014While it is the law that "[glranting a mistrial is an extreme and drastic remedy that should be resorted to only in the face of an error so prejudicial that justice could not be served by proceeding with triall,]" it is also the law that "[the trial court is also in the best position to assess the prejudicial impact of such error." Warner v. State, 897 P.2d 472, 474 (Wyo.1995); see also Martin v. State, 2007 WY 2 , 1 19, 149 P.3d 707, 712 (Wyo.2007). | 2 | 4 |
Martin v. Stategreen2 sentences2014While it is the law that "[glranting a mistrial is an extreme and drastic remedy that should be resorted to only in the face of an error so prejudicial that justice could not be served by proceeding with triall,]" it is also the law that "[the trial court is also in the best position to assess the prejudicial impact of such error." Warner v. State, 897 P.2d 472, 474 (Wyo.1995); see also Martin v. State, 2007 WY 2 , 1 19, 149 P.3d 707, 712 (Wyo.2007). 2014While it is the law that "[glranting a mistrial is an extreme and drastic remedy that should be resorted to only in the face of an error so prejudicial that justice could not be served by proceeding with triall,]" it is also the law that "[the trial court is also in the best position to assess the prejudicial impact of such error." Warner v. State, 897 P.2d 472, 474 (Wyo.1995); see also Martin v. State, 2007 WY 2 , 1 19, 149 P.3d 707, 712 (Wyo.2007). | 2 | 2 |
Jason Bradley McGill v. Stategreen2 sentences2025“The trial court is in the best position to assess the prejudicial impact of the error.” Id. (quoting McGill, ¶ 11, 357 P.3d at 1145 ). [¶23] Under Brady, the State has an affirmative duty to learn about favorable evidence within its control and divulge such evidence to the defendant. 2025“The trial court is in the best position to assess the prejudicial impact of the error.” Id. (quoting McGill, ¶ 11, 357 P.3d at 1145 ). [¶23] Under Brady, the State has an affirmative duty to learn about favorable evidence within its control and divulge such evidence to the defendant. | 1 | 2 |
Vaughn v. Stategreen1 sentence2025In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, we focus on the “reasonableness of the choice made by the trial court.” Jordan v. Brackin, 992 P.2d 1096, 1098 (Wyo. 1999) (quoting Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo. 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. Brackingreen1 sentence2025In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, we focus on the “reasonableness of the choice made by the trial court.” Jordan v. Brackin, 992 P.2d 1096, 1098 (Wyo. 1999) (quoting Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo. 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Lawson v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Mills, 2023 WY 76, ¶ 8 , 533 P.3d at 187 (citing Lawson v. State, 2010 WY 145, ¶ 19 , 242 P.3d 993, 1000 (Wyo. 2010)). 2025Mills, 2023 WY 76, ¶ 8 , 533 P.3d at 187 (citing Lawson v. State, 2010 WY 145, ¶ 19 , 242 P.3d 993, 1000 (Wyo. 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Stategreen2 sentences2015"The trial court is in the best position to assess the prejudicial impact of such error." Allen v. State, 2002 WY 48, ¶ 75 , 43 P.3d 551, 575 (Wyo.2002). [¶12] The district court reasonably concluded that the objectionable testimony was not so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial. 2015"The trial court is in the best position to assess the prejudicial impact of such error." Allen v. State, 2002 WY 48, ¶ 75 , 43 P.3d 551, 575 (Wyo.2002). [¶12] The district court reasonably concluded that the objectionable testimony was not so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
John Byron Mills v. The State of Wyoming
green
2 sentences2025Mills, 2023 WY 76, ¶ 8 , 533 P.3d at 187 (citing Lawson v. State, 2010 WY 145, ¶ 19 , 242 P.3d 993, 1000 (Wyo. 2010)). 2025Mills, 2023 WY 76, ¶ 8 , 533 P.3d at 187 (citing Lawson v. State, 2010 WY 145, ¶ 19 , 242 P.3d 993, 1000 (Wyo. 2010)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ramirez v. State
green
1 sentence1995Ramirez, 739 P.2d at 1220 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.