7 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Dolencgreen2 sentences2008Resources Co. v. Dolenc, 2004 WY 36, 121 , 86 P.3d 1287, 1294 (Wyo.2004). [119] In summary, the marital privilege does not apply when one spouse is charged with a crime against the other. 2008Resources Co. v. Dolenc, 2004 WY 36, 121 , 86 P.3d 1287, 1294 (Wyo.2004). [119] In summary, the marital privilege does not apply when one spouse is charged with a crime against the other. | 1 | 1 |
Lc v. Tlgreen1 sentence2004The strong policy of legitimacy that attends the marital presumption as set out in LC v. TL, 870 P.2d 374, 380 (Wyo.1994), has diminished with the changes in societal values discussed herein. *839 [119] The Court agrees with the decision of the district court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Seyle v. State
green
2 sentences1992Seyle, 584 P.2d at 1086 . 1989Id. at 1086 . | 2 | 1989–1992 |
Wyatt v. United States
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Engberg v. Meyer
green
1 sentence2008We recognized that one justification for the marital privilege rule was "immunity from the repugnant situation of being condemned by one's spouse or of becoming the instrument of a spouse's condemnation." Id. at 83 (quoting 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2241 at 254 (McNaughton rev.1961)). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Curran v. Pasek
green
1 sentence2008Because Emgberg did not involve the "crime against the spouse" exception to the marital privilege, it is of *268 little relevance in the face of the clear statutory exception to marital privilege. [111] Curran came to this Court as a certified question from the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. 886 P.2d at 274 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Amin v. State
green
2 sentences1989No consideration of the marital privilege was otherwise given in the decision except that this court concluded as a factual decision that her elicited testimony was "exculpatory, both as to her and her husband." Id. at 1026 . 1989No consideration of the marital privilege was otherwise given in the decision except that this court concluded as a factual decision that her elicited testimony was “exculpatory, both as to her and her husband.” Id. at 1026 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Majauskas v. Majauskas
green
2 sentences1987“To the extent that they [retirement funds, pensions] result from employment time after marriage and before commencement of a matrimonial action, they are contract rights of value, received in lieu of higher compensation which would otherwise have enhanced either marital assets or the marital standard of living and, therefore, are marital property.” Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481 , 474 N.Y.S.2d 699 , 463 N.E.2d 15 (1984). 1987“To the extent that they [retirement funds, pensions] result from employment time after marriage and before commencement of a matrimonial action, they are contract rights of value, received in lieu of higher compensation which would otherwise have enhanced either marital assets or the marital standard of living and, therefore, are marital property.” Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481 , 474 N.Y.S.2d 699 , 463 N.E.2d 15 (1984). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Russell G. Courtney v. United States
green
1 sentence1978Unlike Courtney v. United States, 9 Cir. 1968, 390 F.2d 521 , cert. den. 393 U.S. 857 , 89 S.Ct. 98 , 21 L.Ed.2d 126 , cited by the defendant, here, there was no express exercise of the marital privilege not to have defendant’s wife testify against him. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Thoresen v. Goodwin
green
1 sentence1978Unlike Courtney v. United States, 9 Cir. 1968, 390 F.2d 521 , cert. den. 393 U.S. 857 , 89 S.Ct. 98 , 21 L.Ed.2d 126 , cited by the defendant, here, there was no express exercise of the marital privilege not to have defendant’s wife testify against him. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Courtney v. United States
green
1 sentence1978Unlike Courtney v. United States, 9 Cir. 1968, 390 F.2d 521 , cert. den. 393 U.S. 857 , 89 S.Ct. 98 , 21 L.Ed.2d 126 , cited by the defendant, here, there was no express exercise of the marital privilege not to have defendant’s wife testify against him. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Vaughn v. Municipal Court, Los Angeles Judicial District
green
1 sentence1978Unlike Courtney v. United States, 9 Cir. 1968, 390 F.2d 521 , cert. den. 393 U.S. 857 , 89 S.Ct. 98 , 21 L.Ed.2d 126 , cited by the defendant, here, there was no express exercise of the marital privilege not to have defendant’s wife testify against him. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.