7 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of the Guardianship of: JR, Minor Child. <br /><br />Tina Eshleman v. Randy Rosenberg and Jennifer Rosenberggreen2 sentences2022Although this issue is not essential to the resolution of this case, in the interest of completeness, we will address it. [¶35] “Whether the district court applied the correct burden of proof is . . . a question of law which we review de novo.” In re Guardianship of JR, 2016 WY 37, ¶ 7 , 368 P.3d 910, 911 (Wyo. 2016) (citing Wise v. Ludlow, 2015 WY 43, ¶ 19 , 346 P.3d 1, 7 (Wyo. 2015)). 13 We agree with the district court that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applies to grandparent visitation cases because of the effect a grandparent visitation order will have on parents’ fu 2022Although this issue is not essential to the resolution of this case, in the interest of completeness, we will address it. [¶35] “Whether the district court applied the correct burden of proof is . . . a question of law which we review de novo.” In re Guardianship of JR, 2016 WY 37, ¶ 7 , 368 P.3d 910, 911 (Wyo. 2016) (citing Wise v. Ludlow, 2015 WY 43, ¶ 19 , 346 P.3d 1, 7 (Wyo. 2015)). 13 We agree with the district court that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applies to grandparent visitation cases because of the effect a grandparent visitation order will have on parents’ fu | 1 | 1 |
Steven F. Ludlowgreen2 sentences2022Although this issue is not essential to the resolution of this case, in the interest of completeness, we will address it. [¶35] “Whether the district court applied the correct burden of proof is . . . a question of law which we review de novo.” In re Guardianship of JR, 2016 WY 37, ¶ 7 , 368 P.3d 910, 911 (Wyo. 2016) (citing Wise v. Ludlow, 2015 WY 43, ¶ 19 , 346 P.3d 1, 7 (Wyo. 2015)). 13 We agree with the district court that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applies to grandparent visitation cases because of the effect a grandparent visitation order will have on parents’ fu 2022Although this issue is not essential to the resolution of this case, in the interest of completeness, we will address it. [¶35] “Whether the district court applied the correct burden of proof is . . . a question of law which we review de novo.” In re Guardianship of JR, 2016 WY 37, ¶ 7 , 368 P.3d 910, 911 (Wyo. 2016) (citing Wise v. Ludlow, 2015 WY 43, ¶ 19 , 346 P.3d 1, 7 (Wyo. 2015)). 13 We agree with the district court that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applies to grandparent visitation cases because of the effect a grandparent visitation order will have on parents’ fu | 1 | 1 |
Frank v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Board of Dental Examinersgreen1 sentence2000Equal protection “ ‘mandates that all persons similarly situated shall be treated alike, both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed.’ ” Frank v. State By and Through Wyoming Board of Dental Examiners, 965 P.2d 674, 678 (Wyo.1998) (quoting Allhusen v. State By and Through Wyoming Mental Health Professions Licensing Board, 898 P.2d 878, 884 (Wyo.1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Allhusen v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Mental Health Professions Licensing Boardgreen1 sentence2000Equal protection “ ‘mandates that all persons similarly situated shall be treated alike, both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed.’ ” Frank v. State By and Through Wyoming Board of Dental Examiners, 965 P.2d 674, 678 (Wyo.1998) (quoting Allhusen v. State By and Through Wyoming Mental Health Professions Licensing Board, 898 P.2d 878, 884 (Wyo.1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Midwestern MacHinery Co.green2 sentences1992See also Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Midwestern Machinery Co., 481 N.W.2d 875, 881 (Minn.App.1992) (considering the parol evidence rule and the clear and convincing evidence test). 1992See also Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Midwestern Machinery Co., 481 N.W.2d 875, 881 (Minn.App.1992) (considering the parol evidence rule and the clear and convincing evidence test). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To: Jpl, Minor Child, Jennifer Anne Hood v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Family Services
green
1 sentence2022Although this issue is not essential to the resolution of this case, in the interest of completeness, we will address it. [¶35] “Whether the district court applied the correct burden of proof is . . . a question of law which we review de novo.” In re Guardianship of JR, 2016 WY 37, ¶ 7 , 368 P.3d 910, 911 (Wyo. 2016) (citing Wise v. Ludlow, 2015 WY 43, ¶ 19 , 346 P.3d 1, 7 (Wyo. 2015)). 13 We agree with the district court that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applies to grandparent visitation cases because of the effect a grandparent visitation order will have on parents’ fu | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To: Dks and Ach, Minor Children, Rachael Marie Harmon v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services
green
1 sentence2022(In re DKS), 2020 WY 12, ¶ 19 , 456 P.3d 918 , 924 (Wyo. 2020)) (other citation omitted). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Latimer v. Rissler & McMurry Co.
green
1 sentence2020“The normal standard of proof in administrative hearings is the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard” but “[i]n certain circumstances, such as in professional disciplinary hearings, the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard applies.” Id. (citations omitted). 5 The Commission is an agency under the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
LeBlanc v. State, Department of Family Services
green
2 sentences2019STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶10] "Because associating with one's family is a fundamental right, we apply strict scrutiny when we evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination of parental rights using the clear and convincing evidence standard." LeBlanc v. State Dep't of Family Servs. , 2017 WY 107 , ¶ 20, 401 P.3d 932 , 935 (Wyo. 2017). "[W]e ask whether the evidence, when otherwise viewed in the light most favorable to the State-assuming its evidence to be true and disregarding all conflicting evidence-would persuade a reasonable trier of fact that it is highly probable that the 2019STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶10] "Because associating with one's family is a fundamental right, we apply strict scrutiny when we evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination of parental rights using the clear and convincing evidence standard." LeBlanc v. State Dep't of Family Servs. , 2017 WY 107 , ¶ 20, 401 P.3d 932 , 935 (Wyo. 2017). "[W]e ask whether the evidence, when otherwise viewed in the light most favorable to the State-assuming its evidence to be true and disregarding all conflicting evidence-would persuade a reasonable trier of fact that it is highly probable that the | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Avery v. State
green
2 sentences2006Avery, 2002 WY 87, ¶ 7 , 47 P.3d at 976 . 2006Avery, 2002 WY 87, ¶ 7 , 47 P.3d at 976 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board
green
1 sentence2006Doe, 697 N.E.2d at 519 . [¶ 18] The State counters these arguments by contending that due process requires the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof only in proceedings resulting in such a significant deprivation of liberty or social stigma that it must be said to amount to additional punishment for a criminal conviction. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
DS v. Department of Public Assistance & Social Services
green
1 sentence1986He refers us to DS v. Department of Public Assistance and Social Services, Wyo., 607 P.2d 911 (1980), a case in which the State sought to break up a natural family under the termination of parental rights statutes, §§ 14-2-308 through 14-2-319, W.S.1977 (Cum. | 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.