firmly rooted exception in Wyoming

7 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2022 2 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
White v. Illinoisgreen scotus · 1992 · cited in 2 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 1997–1998 2 sentences 1997The United States Supreme Court has held that F.R.E. 803(4), which is identical to W.R.E. 803(4), represents a firmly-rooted exception to the hearsay rule, Betzle, 847 P.2d at 1020 (citing White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992)), and therefore, admission of evidence pursuant to this rule does not violate the confrontation clause of the Constitution. 1997The United States Supreme Court has held that F.R.E. 803(4), which is identical to W.R.E. 803(4), represents a firmly-rooted exception to the hearsay rule, Betzle, 847 P.2d at 1020 (citing White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992)), and therefore, admission of evidence pursuant to this rule does not violate the confrontation clause of the Constitution.	1	2
Hodgins v. Stategreen wyo · 1998 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022Bruce, ¶ 40, 346 P.3d at 923 (citation omitted); Hodgins v. State, 962 P.2d 153, 157 (Wyo. 1998) (“W.R.E. 803(6) is a firmly rooted exception to the exclusionary hearsay rule.	1	1
Shey Elan Brucegreen wyo · 2015 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022Bruce, ¶ 40, 346 P.3d at 923 (citation omitted); Hodgins v. State, 962 P.2d 153, 157 (Wyo. 1998) (“W.R.E. 803(6) is a firmly rooted exception to the exclusionary hearsay rule.	1	1
People v. Shifringreen coloctapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021People v. Shifrin, 342 P.3d 506, 517 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). [¶84] At this point, we cannot know if Mr. Linklater’s testimony will be admitted on remand and if it is, under which rule it will be admitted.	1	1
Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. A.G.G.green ky · 2006 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021But where an exception applies, in civil proceedings “[d]ue process requires only that the evidence be reliable, and reliability can be inferred without more in a case where evidence falls within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” Cabinet for Health & Family Servs. v. A.G.G., 190 S.W.3d 338, 346 (Ky. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).	1	1
Powder River Basin Resource Council v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commissiongreen wyo · 2014 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, 2014 WY 37 , ¶ 19, 320 P.3d 222, 228 (Wyo. 2014) (alta-tions omitted). [¶ 28] An additional firmly rooted rule of statutory construction also aids in our interpretation.	1	1
Moncrief v. Wyoming State Board of Equalizationgreen wyo · 1993 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016That is, "where the legislature, by subsequent amendment or legislation in the same act or on the same subject, enacts language which clarifies previously ambiguous language, the subsequent language gives meaning to the previously ambiguous expression." Moncrief v. Wyoming State Bd. of Equalization, 856 P 2d 440, 444-45 (Wyo. 1998). [¶29] In 2010, the Wyoming legislature amended the statute in question and clarified the amblgmty (@a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, any contractor asserting a lien under this chapter shall file his lien statement within one hundred fifty (1	1	1
Johnson v. Stategreen wyo · 1997 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 1 sentence 1998See also Johnson v. State, 936 P.2d 458,465 (Wyo.1997). *157 W.R.E. 803(6) is a firmly rooted exception to the exclusionary hearsay rule.	1	1
Owen v. Stategreen wyo · 1995 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997See Owen v. State, 902 P.2d at 195-97 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
cluster 2656400 green wyo · 2014 1 sentence 2016Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, 2014 WY 37 , ¶ 19, 320 P.3d 222, 228 (Wyo. 2014) (alta-tions omitted). [¶ 28] An additional firmly rooted rule of statutory construction also aids in our interpretation.	1	2016–2016
Ohio v. Roberts red scotus · 1980 2 sentences 2003In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Wright, 497 U.S. at 814-15 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)). [¶ 18] Statements admitted under the residual exception, W.R.E. 804(b)(6), do not fall within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. 2003In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Wright, 497 U.S. at 814-15 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)). [¶ 18] Statements admitted under the residual exception, W.R.E. 804(b)(6), do not fall within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule.	1	2003–2003
Idaho v. Wright green scotus · 1990 2 sentences 2003In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Wright, 497 U.S. at 814-15 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)). [¶ 18] Statements admitted under the residual exception, W.R.E. 804(b)(6), do not fall within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. 2003In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Wright, 497 U.S. at 814-15 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)). [¶ 18] Statements admitted under the residual exception, W.R.E. 804(b)(6), do not fall within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule.	1	2003–2003
Betzle v. State green wyo · 1993 2 sentences 1997Id. 1997The United States Supreme Court has held that F.R.E. 803(4), which is identical to W.R.E. 803(4), represents a firmly-rooted exception to the hearsay rule, Betzle, 847 P.2d at 1020 (citing White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992)), and therefore, admission of evidence pursuant to this rule does not violate the confrontation clause of the Constitution.	1	1997–1997

Where else courts name it

TX 47 (1987–2017) OH 30 (1992–2012) CA 22 (1993–2023) VA 21 (1996–2020) IL 20 (1989–2024) NM 17 (1996–2017) WA 17 (1998–2009) CO 17 (1993–2026) PA 15 (1990–2026) NC 14 (1994–2009) LA 12 (1995–2017) AL 12 (1994–2026) FL 11 (1988–2019) MO 11 (1898–2007) MN 10 (1991–2006) AZ 10 (1990–2003) GA 9 (1995–2011) MD 9 (1988–2016) CT 8 (1992–2010) MA 7 (1994–2025) WY 7 (1997–2022) TN 7 (2002–2010) DE 7 (1998–2017) SC 7 (1995–2006) IN 7 (1994–2010) WI 6 (1982–2002) MI 6 (1991–2020) DC 6 (1996–2009) KY 6 (2001–2006) OK 5 (1996–2014) IA 4 (1994–2005) SD 4 (1986–2000) MT 3 (2001–2006) WV 3 (1999–2003) HI 3 (1992–2018) ME 2 (1995–2003) ID 2 (1999–2001) MS 2 (2000–2004) OR 2 (1993–2000) KS 2 (2001–2005) NE 2 (1993–2000) AK 2 (1994–1994)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check