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.
7 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hays v. Stategreen1 sentence2001The submission to the *51 jury of papers or exhibits not received in evidence is prejudicial error. 522 P.2d at 1008 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Price v. State Highway Commissiongreen2 sentences1980We look, then, to other areas for a sense of the balancing process in which courts must indulge where they are charged with finding immunity for the administrative official so that he may engage in "fearless administration of the law," Davis, Administrative Law, supra, while, at the same time, providing protection from those officers who, under the guise of immunity, work their wrongful ways against those who deserve neither their wrath nor their negligence. *1051 In Price v. State Highway Commission, 62 Wyo. 385 , 167 P.2d 309, 312 (1946), where the plaintiff struck a snowplow and sued the Co 1980We look, then, to other areas for a sense of the balancing process in which courts must indulge where they are charged with finding immunity for the administrative official so that he may engage in "fearless administration of the law," Davis, Administrative Law, supra, while, at the same time, providing protection from those officers who, under the guise of immunity, work their wrongful ways against those who deserve neither their wrath nor their negligence. *1051 In Price v. State Highway Commission, 62 Wyo. 385 , 167 P.2d 309, 312 (1946), where the plaintiff struck a snowplow and sued the Co | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sowers v. Iowa Home Mutual Casualty Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2014Nor may a contract, under the guise of waiver, be reformed to create a liability for a condition specifically excluded by the specific terms of the policy. * * * "The doctrine of implied waiver or estoppel is not available to bring within the coverage of an insurance policy risks that are not covered by its terms or that are expressly - excluded - therefrom Sowers, 359 P.2d at 498 . 2014Nor may a contract, under the guise of waiver, be reformed to create a liability for a condition specifically excluded by the specific terms of the policy. * * * “The doctrine of implied waiver or estoppel is not available to bring within the coverage of an 4 insurance policy risks that are not covered by its terms or that are expressly excluded therefrom * * *.” Sowers, 359 P.2d at 493 . | 3 | 1988–2014 |
Ultra Resources, Inc. v. Hartman
green
2 sentences2019Second, Buyers have not shown that "fully functional" has a particularized or technical meaning in the water well industry, or that, if it did, we should presume the parties intended "fully functional" to imply compliance with standards *887 for an industry in which neither party participates. [¶22] In Thornock v. PacifiCorp , we rejected appellant's attempt to employ extrinsic evidence of the parties' subjective intent under the guise of applying the rule of contract interpretation that "[c]ourts should consider the circumstances surrounding execution of the agreement to determine the parties 2019In Thornock , we acknowledged precedent in which the Court considered extrinsic evidence but noted that consideration of such evidence generally is limited to "situations where an otherwise unambiguous term had a different, special, or technical usage at the time the contract was executed." Id. (citations omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jason Thornock v. Pacificorp, an Oregon Company
green
1 sentence2019Second, Buyers have not shown that "fully functional" has a particularized or technical meaning in the water well industry, or that, if it did, we should presume the parties intended "fully functional" to imply compliance with standards *887 for an industry in which neither party participates. [¶22] In Thornock v. PacifiCorp , we rejected appellant's attempt to employ extrinsic evidence of the parties' subjective intent under the guise of applying the rule of contract interpretation that "[c]ourts should consider the circumstances surrounding execution of the agreement to determine the parties | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Michael Isaac Green v. State
green
1 sentence2019Second, Buyers have not shown that "fully functional" has a particularized or technical meaning in the water well industry, or that, if it did, we should presume the parties intended "fully functional" to imply compliance with standards *887 for an industry in which neither party participates. [¶22] In Thornock v. PacifiCorp , we rejected appellant's attempt to employ extrinsic evidence of the parties' subjective intent under the guise of applying the rule of contract interpretation that "[c]ourts should consider the circumstances surrounding execution of the agreement to determine the parties | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Ricci v. New Hampshire Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1988We have applied this principle in the more recent cases of Ricci, 721 P.2d 1081 , and Tadday v. National Aviation Underwriters, 660 P.2d 1148 (Wyo.1983). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Tadday v. National Aviation Underwriters
green
1 sentence1988We have applied this principle in the more recent cases of Ricci, 721 P.2d 1081 , and Tadday v. National Aviation Underwriters, 660 P.2d 1148 (Wyo.1983). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
United States v. Michener
green
1 sentence1974The submission to the jury of papers or exhibits not received in evidence is prejudicial error, Osborne v. United States, 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 111, 115 ; Dallago v. United States, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 276 , 427 F.2d 546, 553 ; United States v. Michener, 3 Cir., 152 F.2d 880, 885-886 ; State v. Lindeman, 64 N.D. 518 , 254 N.W. 276, 280-281 , 93 A.L.R. 1442 ; People v. Holcomb, 370 Ill. 299 , 18 N.E.2d 878 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
The People v. Holcomb
green
2 sentences1974The submission to the jury of papers or exhibits not received in evidence is prejudicial error, Osborne v. United States, 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 111, 115 ; Dallago v. United States, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 276 , 427 F.2d 546, 553 ; United States v. Michener, 3 Cir., 152 F.2d 880, 885-886 ; State v. Lindeman, 64 N.D. 518 , 254 N.W. 276, 280-281 , 93 A.L.R. 1442 ; People v. Holcomb, 370 Ill. 299 , 18 N.E.2d 878 . 1974The submission to the jury of papers or exhibits not received in evidence is prejudicial error, Osborne v. United States, 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 111, 115 ; Dallago v. United States, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 276 , 427 F.2d 546, 553 ; United States v. Michener, 3 Cir., 152 F.2d 880, 885-886 ; State v. Lindeman, 64 N.D. 518 , 254 N.W. 276, 280-281 , 93 A.L.R. 1442 ; People v. Holcomb, 370 Ill. 299 , 18 N.E.2d 878 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Alfred H. Osborne, Sr. v. United States
green
1 sentence1974The submission to the jury of papers or exhibits not received in evidence is prejudicial error, Osborne v. United States, 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 111, 115 ; Dallago v. United States, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 276 , 427 F.2d 546, 553 ; United States v. Michener, 3 Cir., 152 F.2d 880, 885-886 ; State v. Lindeman, 64 N.D. 518 , 254 N.W. 276, 280-281 , 93 A.L.R. 1442 ; People v. Holcomb, 370 Ill. 299 , 18 N.E.2d 878 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Alfred Dallago v. United States
green
2 sentences1974The submission to the jury of papers or exhibits not received in evidence is prejudicial error, Osborne v. United States, 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 111, 115 ; Dallago v. United States, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 276 , 427 F.2d 546, 553 ; United States v. Michener, 3 Cir., 152 F.2d 880, 885-886 ; State v. Lindeman, 64 N.D. 518 , 254 N.W. 276, 280-281 , 93 A.L.R. 1442 ; People v. Holcomb, 370 Ill. 299 , 18 N.E.2d 878 . 1974The submission to the jury of papers or exhibits not received in evidence is prejudicial error, Osborne v. United States, 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 111, 115 ; Dallago v. United States, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 276 , 427 F.2d 546, 553 ; United States v. Michener, 3 Cir., 152 F.2d 880, 885-886 ; State v. Lindeman, 64 N.D. 518 , 254 N.W. 276, 280-281 , 93 A.L.R. 1442 ; People v. Holcomb, 370 Ill. 299 , 18 N.E.2d 878 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Lindeman
green
2 sentences1974The submission to the jury of papers or exhibits not received in evidence is prejudicial error, Osborne v. United States, 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 111, 115 ; Dallago v. United States, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 276 , 427 F.2d 546, 553 ; United States v. Michener, 3 Cir., 152 F.2d 880, 885-886 ; State v. Lindeman, 64 N.D. 518 , 254 N.W. 276, 280-281 , 93 A.L.R. 1442 ; People v. Holcomb, 370 Ill. 299 , 18 N.E.2d 878 . 1974The submission to the jury of papers or exhibits not received in evidence is prejudicial error, Osborne v. United States, 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 111, 115 ; Dallago v. United States, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 276 , 427 F.2d 546, 553 ; United States v. Michener, 3 Cir., 152 F.2d 880, 885-886 ; State v. Lindeman, 64 N.D. 518 , 254 N.W. 276, 280-281 , 93 A.L.R. 1442 ; People v. Holcomb, 370 Ill. 299 , 18 N.E.2d 878 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.