7 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1936–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Miller v. State, 2015 WY 72, ¶ 9 , 350 P.3d 742, 745 (Wyo. 2015) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that “the district court committed reversible error by failing to expressly rule that his probation violations were willful”). 7 [¶27] In this context, the term “[w]illfully means intentionally, knowingly, purposely, voluntarily, consciously, deliberately, and without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from carelessly, inadvertently, accidentally, negligently, heedlessly or thoughtlessly.” Edrington v. State, 2008 WY 70, ¶ 9 , 185 P.3d 1264, 1267 (Wyo. 2008) (citation omitted). 2019See Miller v. State, 2015 WY 72, ¶ 9 , 350 P.3d 742, 745 (Wyo. 2015) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that “the district court committed reversible error by failing to expressly rule that his probation violations were willful”). 7 [¶27] In this context, the term “[w]illfully means intentionally, knowingly, purposely, voluntarily, consciously, deliberately, and without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from carelessly, inadvertently, accidentally, negligently, heedlessly or thoughtlessly.” Edrington v. State, 2008 WY 70, ¶ 9 , 185 P.3d 1264, 1267 (Wyo. 2008) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Edrington v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Miller v. State, 2015 WY 72, ¶ 9 , 350 P.3d 742, 745 (Wyo. 2015) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that “the district court committed reversible error by failing to expressly rule that his probation violations were willful”). 7 [¶27] In this context, the term “[w]illfully means intentionally, knowingly, purposely, voluntarily, consciously, deliberately, and without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from carelessly, inadvertently, accidentally, negligently, heedlessly or thoughtlessly.” Edrington v. State, 2008 WY 70, ¶ 9 , 185 P.3d 1264, 1267 (Wyo. 2008) (citation omitted). 2019See Miller v. State, 2015 WY 72, ¶ 9 , 350 P.3d 742, 745 (Wyo. 2015) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that “the district court committed reversible error by failing to expressly rule that his probation violations were willful”). 7 [¶27] In this context, the term “[w]illfully means intentionally, knowingly, purposely, voluntarily, consciously, deliberately, and without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from carelessly, inadvertently, accidentally, negligently, heedlessly or thoughtlessly.” Edrington v. State, 2008 WY 70, ¶ 9 , 185 P.3d 1264, 1267 (Wyo. 2008) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Miller v. State, 560 P.2d 739, 741 (Wyo.1977), citing Faretta, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Durangreen2 sentences2009(Emphasis in original). [¶ 24] In support of its contention that the district court committed reversible error by the way in which it responded to the jury`s questions, the appellant cites United States v. Duran, 133 F.3d 1324, 1334 (10th Cir. 1998) and Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 114, ¶ 44 , 193 P.3d 228, 244 (Wyo. 2008), for the proposition that it is the court`s duty to clear up jury confusion about the instructions or applicable law. 2009(Emphasis in original). [¶ 24] In support of its contention that the district court committed reversible error by the way in which it responded to the jury’s questions, the appellant cites United States v. Duran, 133 F.3d 1324, 1334 (10th Cir.1998) and Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 114, ¶ 44 , 193 P.3d 228, 244 (Wyo.2008), for the proposition that it is the court’s duty to clear up jury confusion about the instructions or applicable law. | 1 | 1 |
Proffit v. Stategreen2 sentences2009(Emphasis in original). [¶ 24] In support of its contention that the district court committed reversible error by the way in which it responded to the jury`s questions, the appellant cites United States v. Duran, 133 F.3d 1324, 1334 (10th Cir. 1998) and Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 114, ¶ 44 , 193 P.3d 228, 244 (Wyo. 2008), for the proposition that it is the court`s duty to clear up jury confusion about the instructions or applicable law. 2009(Emphasis in original). [¶ 24] In support of its contention that the district court committed reversible error by the way in which it responded to the jury`s questions, the appellant cites United States v. Duran, 133 F.3d 1324, 1334 (10th Cir. 1998) and Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 114, ¶ 44 , 193 P.3d 228, 244 (Wyo. 2008), for the proposition that it is the court`s duty to clear up jury confusion about the instructions or applicable law. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bryant v. State
neutral
1 sentence2019“Whether or not a violation was willful is a matter of intent, which is a question of fact.” Id. (quoting Bryant v. State, 7 Wyo. 311 , 56 P. 596 , 597 (Wyo. 1899)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Sinning v. State
green
1 sentence2015Id. [¶9] Mr. Miller argues the district court committed reversible error by failing to expressly rule that his probation violations were willful. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences2012Miller v. State, 560 P.2d 739, 741 (Wyo.1977), citing Faretta, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 . 2012Miller v. State, 560 P.2d 739, 741 (Wyo.1977), citing Faretta, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Edwards v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2000Interrogation after Invoking Right to Counsel In Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), the United States Supreme Court held that an accused person in custody who has expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication with the police. 451 U.S. at 484-85 , 101 S.Ct. at 1885 . 2000Interrogation after Invoking Right to Counsel In Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), the United States Supreme Court held that an accused person in custody who has expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication with the police. 451 U.S. at 484-85 , 101 S.Ct. at 1885 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Shepard v. State
green
1 sentence1986Most recently, in Martin v. State, Wyo., 720 P.2d 894 (1986), and Shepard v. State, Wyo., 720 P.2d 904 (1986), we reiterated and clarified those standards. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Martin v. State
green
1 sentence1986Most recently, in Martin v. State, Wyo., 720 P.2d 894 (1986), and Shepard v. State, Wyo., 720 P.2d 904 (1986), we reiterated and clarified those standards. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Opitz v. Town of Newcastle
green
2 sentences1936The admission of objectionable evidence is not ground for reversal where the same, or substantially the same, evidence has been theretofore received without objection, Opitz v. Town of City of Newcastle, 35 Wyo. 358 , 249 Pac. 799 ; Huber v. Thomas, 45 Wyo. 440 , 19 Pac. (2d) 1042 , and author *91 ities cited. 1936The admission of objectionable evidence is not ground for reversal where the same, or substantially the same, evidence has been theretofore received without objection, Opitz v. Town of City of Newcastle, 35 Wyo. 358 , 249 Pac. 799 ; Huber v. Thomas, 45 Wyo. 440 , 19 Pac. (2d) 1042 , and author *91 ities cited. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Huber v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1936The admission of objectionable evidence is not ground for reversal where the same, or substantially the same, evidence has been theretofore received without objection, Opitz v. Town of City of Newcastle, 35 Wyo. 358 , 249 Pac. 799 ; Huber v. Thomas, 45 Wyo. 440 , 19 Pac. (2d) 1042 , and author *91 ities cited. 1936The admission of objectionable evidence is not ground for reversal where the same, or substantially the same, evidence has been theretofore received without objection, Opitz v. Town of City of Newcastle, 35 Wyo. 358 , 249 Pac. 799 ; Huber v. Thomas, 45 Wyo. 440 , 19 Pac. (2d) 1042 , and author *91 ities cited. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.