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.
47 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1936–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reavis v. Reavisgreen2 sentences2005The determination of the best interests of the child is a question for the trier of fact. ‘We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.’ Fink [v. Fink], 685 P.2d [34,] 36 [ (Wyo.1984) ].” Reavis v. Reavis, 955 P.2d 428, 431 (Wyo.1998) (some citations omitted). 2005We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.’ Fink [v. Fink], 685 P.2d [34,] 36 [(Wyo.1984)].” Reavis v. Reavis, 955 P.2d 428, 431 (Wyo.1998).... | 17 | 17 |
Resor v. Resorgreen2 sentences2012Id. (quoting Resor v. Resor, 987 P.2d 146, 148 (Wyo.1999)). 2011Resor v. Resor, 987 P.2d 146, 148 (Wyo.1999), quoting Reavis v. Reavis, 955 P.2d 428, 431 (Wyo.1998). | 10 | 10 |
Pinther v. Pinthergreen2 sentences2014A court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. - Pinther v. Pinther, 888 P.2d 1250, 1252 (Wyo.1995) (quoting Dowdy v. Dowdy, 864 P.2d 489 , 440 (Wyo.1998)). 2007A court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. - Pinther v. Pinther, 888 P2d 1250, 1252 (Wyo.1995) (quoting Dowdy v. Dowdy, 864 P.2d 489 , 440 (Wyo.1998)). | 2 | 2 |
Bradshaw v. Nicolaygreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., Lund v. Caple, 100 Wash.2d 739 , 675 P.2d 226, 229 (1984) (en banc); and Bradshaw v. Nicolay, 765 P.2d 630, 632 (Colo.Ct.App.1988). 1994See, e.g., Lund v. Caple, 100 Wash.2d 739 , 675 P.2d 226, 229 (1984) (en banc); and Bradshaw v. Nicolay, 765 P.2d 630, 632 (Colo.Ct.App.1988). | 2 | 2 |
Lund v. Caplegreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., Lund v. Caple, 100 Wash.2d 739 , 675 P.2d 226, 229 (1984) (en banc); and Bradshaw v. Nicolay, 765 P.2d 630, 632 (Colo.Ct.App.1988). 1994See, e.g., Lund v. Caple, 100 Wash.2d 739 , 675 P.2d 226, 229 (1984) (en banc); and Bradshaw v. Nicolay, 765 P.2d 630, 632 (Colo.Ct.App.1988). | 2 | 2 |
Daniel L. Stevens v. Kacie J. Stevensgreen2 sentences2018We will not overturn a district court's decision "unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle." Id ."To determine whether a district court has abused its discretion, we must rely on the district court's articulation of the factors which were considered and how those factors support its conclusions." IC v. DW , 2015 WY 135 , ¶ 12, 360 P.3d 999 , 1004 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Stevens v. Stevens , 2014 WY 23 , ¶ 26, 318 P.3d 802 , 811 (Wyo. 2014) ). 2018We "do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle." Stevens , ¶ 8, 318 P.3d at 805 (quoting Fink v. Fink , 685 P.2d 34 , 36 (Wyo. 1984) ). [¶12] Mother challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidentiary findings, to some degree, in every issue presented by her on appeal. | 1 | 3 |
FH v. State (In re Interest of ECH)green2 sentences2021See Interest of VS, 2018 WY 119 , ¶ 32, 429 P.3d 14, 23 (Wyo. 2018); see also Interest of ECH, 2018 WY 83 , ¶ 44, 423 P.3d 295, 307-08 (Wyo. 2018) (interpreting meaning of “presence” as used in § 14-3-415(a)). 2018We discussed the presence requirement in FH, ¶¶ 42-46, 423 P.3d at 307 -09 , which was decided after the briefing in this case had concluded. | 1 | 2 |
Meehan-Greer v. Greergreen2 sentences2021We will not “overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.” Kidd v. Jacobson, 2020 WY 64, ¶ 13 , 463 P.3d 795 , 798 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Meehan-Greer v. Greer, 2018 WY 39 , ¶ 14, 415 P.3d 274 , 278–79 (Wyo. 2018)). 2021We will not “overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.” Kidd v. Jacobson, 2020 WY 64, ¶ 13 , 463 P.3d 795 , 798 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Meehan-Greer v. Greer, 2018 WY 39 , ¶ 14, 415 P.3d 274 , 278–79 (Wyo. 2018)). | 1 | 2 |
Testerman v. Testermangreen2 sentences2012Id. (quoting Resor v. Resor, 987 P.2d 146, 148 (Wyo.1999)). 2010Pace v. Pace, 2001 WY 43, ¶ 9 , 22 P.3d 861, 865 (Wyo.2001) (quoting Reavis v. Reavis, 955 P.2d 428, 431 (Wyo.1998)); Testerman v. Testerman, 2008 WY 112, ¶ 8 , 193 P.3d 1141, 1144 (Wyo.2008). | 1 | 2 |
Benjamin Greer Marquis v. Laura Ann Marquis n/k/a Laura Ann Fausettgreen2 sentences2025We will not overturn a district court’s child support decision “unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.” Corbitt, ¶ 12, 532 P.3d at 663 (quoting Marquis v. Marquis, 2020 WY 141, ¶ 20 , 476 P.3d 212, 218 (Wyo. 2020)). 2025We will not overturn a district court’s child support decision “unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.” Corbitt, ¶ 12, 532 P.3d at 663 (quoting Marquis v. Marquis, 2020 WY 141, ¶ 20 , 476 P.3d 212, 218 (Wyo. 2020)). | 1 | 1 |
Nichelle Ann Tucker n/k/a Nichelle Ann Joiner v. Lelon Thomas Tuckergreen1 sentence2023Tucker, ¶ 23, 505 P.3d at 203 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
JA v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Id.; see also In re DSB, 2008 WY 15, ¶¶ 19-20 , 176 P.3d 633, 638 (Wyo. 2008) (holding that failure to adjudicate within 90-day statutory deadline did not deprive juvenile court of jurisdiction). [¶60] Like the statutory adjudication deadlines at issue in MFB and DSB, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-415 (a) contains no sanctions for a juvenile court’s failure to insure a parent’s presence at a hearing. 2021Id.; see also In re DSB, 2008 WY 15, ¶¶ 19-20 , 176 P.3d 633, 638 (Wyo. 2008) (holding that failure to adjudicate within 90-day statutory deadline did not deprive juvenile court of jurisdiction). [¶60] Like the statutory adjudication deadlines at issue in MFB and DSB, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-415 (a) contains no sanctions for a juvenile court’s failure to insure a parent’s presence at a hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Dorr v. Newmangreen1 sentence2021Id. (quoting Dorr v. Newman, 785 P.2d 1172, 1178 (Wyo. 1990)); see also Johnson v. Johnson, 2020 WY 18, ¶ 10 , 458 P.3d 27, 32 (Wyo. 2020) (“We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.”) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
GS v. State (In re Interest of VS)green1 sentence2021See Interest of VS, 2018 WY 119 , ¶ 32, 429 P.3d 14, 23 (Wyo. 2018); see also Interest of ECH, 2018 WY 83 , ¶ 44, 423 P.3d 295, 307-08 (Wyo. 2018) (interpreting meaning of “presence” as used in § 14-3-415(a)). | 1 | 1 |
Andrew P. Johnson v. Katie L. Johnsongreen2 sentences2021Id. (quoting Dorr v. Newman, 785 P.2d 1172, 1178 (Wyo. 1990)); see also Johnson v. Johnson, 2020 WY 18, ¶ 10 , 458 P.3d 27, 32 (Wyo. 2020) (“We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.”) (citation omitted). 2021Id. (quoting Dorr v. Newman, 785 P.2d 1172, 1178 (Wyo. 1990)); see also Johnson v. Johnson, 2020 WY 18, ¶ 10 , 458 P.3d 27, 32 (Wyo. 2020) (“We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.”) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Gurney v. Gurneygreen1 sentence2018Scherer, 931 P.2d at 254 ; Rowan v. Rowan, 786 P.2d 886 , 890 (Wyo.1990) ; see also Gurney v. Gurney, 899 P.2d 52 , 55 (Wyo.1995) ; and Fink v. Fink, 685 P.2d 34 , 36 (Wyo.1984)...."We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle." Fink, 685 P.2d at 36 . | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Neikirkgreen1 sentence2016Id.; see also Smith v. Neikirk, 548 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977) (“The record of testimony indicates that witness Runk was within the presence of the testator and the other witnesses at all times. | 1 | 1 |
| Pahl v. Pahlgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pace v. Pacered | 1 | 1 |
| Vaughn v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fox v. Foxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fink v. Fink
green
2 sentences2018"We do not overturn the decision *279 of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle." Fink, 685 P.2d at 36 . 2018We "do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle." Stevens , ¶ 8, 318 P.3d at 805 (quoting Fink v. Fink , 685 P.2d 34 , 36 (Wyo. 1984) ). [¶12] Mother challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidentiary findings, to some degree, in every issue presented by her on appeal. | 12 | 1997–2018 |
Aimee V. Kidd F/K/A Aimee V. Jacobson v. Matthew T. Jacobson
green
2 sentences2023“We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.” Marquis, ¶ 20, 476 P.2d at 218 (quoting Kidd v. Jacobson, 2020 WY 64, ¶ 13 , 463 P.3d 795 , 798 (Wyo. 2020)). [¶13] The first step the court takes in calculating child support is determining the parties’ monthly incomes and net monthly incomes. 2023“We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.” Marquis, ¶ 20, 476 P.2d at 218 (quoting Kidd v. Jacobson, 2020 WY 64, ¶ 13 , 463 P.3d 795 , 798 (Wyo. 2020)). [¶13] The first step the court takes in calculating child support is determining the parties’ monthly incomes and net monthly incomes. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
Sims v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences1994The defendant must have been negligent and his negligence must be the proximate cause of the plaintiff's mental injuries.'" 751 P.2d at 366 (quoting Gates, 719 P.2d at 200-01 ) (emphasis in original and some emphasis omitted). 1994The defendant must have been negligent and his negligence must be the proximate cause of the plaintiffs mental injuries.’ ” 751 P.2d at 366 (quoting Gates, 719 P.2d at 200-01 ) (emphasis in original and some emphasis omitted). | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Foster v. Trentham's Inc.
green
2 sentences1994The court considered the fact that the outrageous conduct had occurred in the wife's home and the continuing nature of the outrageous conduct in holding that the presence requirement had been satisfied for the purposes of a motion to dismiss. 458 F.Supp. at 1384 . 1994The court considered the fact that the outrageous conduct had occurred in the wife’s home and the continuing nature of the outrageous conduct in holding that the presence requirement had been satisfied for the purposes of a motion to dismiss. 458 F.Supp. at 1384 . | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Pearsall v. Emhart Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences1994A federal district court in Pennsylvania held that the presence requirement for negligent infliction of emotional distress was satisfied when the plaintiff witnessed the bodies of her family after they had been pulled from the burning house. 599 F.Supp. at 212 . 1994A federal district court in Pennsylvania held that the presence requirement for negligent infliction of emotional distress was satisfied when the plaintiff witnessed the bodies of her family after they had been pulled from the burning house. 599 F.Supp. at 212 . | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Gates v. Richardson
green
2 sentences1994The defendant must have been negligent and his negligence must be the proximate cause of the plaintiff's mental injuries.'" 751 P.2d at 366 (quoting Gates, 719 P.2d at 200-01 ) (emphasis in original and some emphasis omitted). 1994The defendant must have been negligent and his negligence must be the proximate cause of the plaintiffs mental injuries.’ ” 751 P.2d at 366 (quoting Gates, 719 P.2d at 200-01 ) (emphasis in original and some emphasis omitted). | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Mary Elizabeth Corbitt F/K/A Mary Elizabeth Davidson v. Michael Aaron Davidson
green
1 sentence2025We will not overturn a district court’s child support decision “unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.” Corbitt, ¶ 12, 532 P.3d at 663 (quoting Marquis v. Marquis, 2020 WY 141, ¶ 20 , 476 P.3d 212, 218 (Wyo. 2020)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Jacobson v. Kidd
green
1 sentence2021We will not “overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.” Kidd v. Jacobson, 2020 WY 64, ¶ 13 , 463 P.3d 795 , 798 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Meehan-Greer v. Greer, 2018 WY 39 , ¶ 14, 415 P.3d 274 , 278–79 (Wyo. 2018)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Aaron C. Linden v. Mary C. Linden, n/k/a/ Mary C. Eliason
green
1 sentence2021Id. (quoting Dorr v. Newman, 785 P.2d 1172, 1178 (Wyo. 1990)); see also Johnson v. Johnson, 2020 WY 18, ¶ 10 , 458 P.3d 27, 32 (Wyo. 2020) (“We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle.”) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Jones v. Jones
green
1 sentence2018"Findings of fact not supported by the evidence, contrary to the evidence, or against the great weight of the evidence cannot be sustained." Id. (quoting Jones v. Jones , 858 P.2d 289 , 291 (Wyo. 1993) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Scherer v. Scherer
green
1 sentence2018Scherer, 931 P.2d at 254 ; Rowan v. Rowan, 786 P.2d 886 , 890 (Wyo.1990) ; see also Gurney v. Gurney, 899 P.2d 52 , 55 (Wyo.1995) ; and Fink v. Fink, 685 P.2d 34 , 36 (Wyo.1984)...."We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle." Fink, 685 P.2d at 36 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
IC v. DW
green
2 sentences2018We will not overturn a district court's decision "unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle." Id ."To determine whether a district court has abused its discretion, we must rely on the district court's articulation of the factors which were considered and how those factors support its conclusions." IC v. DW , 2015 WY 135 , ¶ 12, 360 P.3d 999 , 1004 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Stevens v. Stevens , 2014 WY 23 , ¶ 26, 318 P.3d 802 , 811 (Wyo. 2014) ). 2018We will not overturn a district court's decision "unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle." Id ."To determine whether a district court has abused its discretion, we must rely on the district court's articulation of the factors which were considered and how those factors support its conclusions." IC v. DW , 2015 WY 135 , ¶ 12, 360 P.3d 999 , 1004 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Stevens v. Stevens , 2014 WY 23 , ¶ 26, 318 P.3d 802 , 811 (Wyo. 2014) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rowan v. Rowan
green
1 sentence2018Scherer, 931 P.2d at 254 ; Rowan v. Rowan, 786 P.2d 886 , 890 (Wyo.1990) ; see also Gurney v. Gurney, 899 P.2d 52 , 55 (Wyo.1995) ; and Fink v. Fink, 685 P.2d 34 , 36 (Wyo.1984)...."We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle." Fink, 685 P.2d at 36 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| R.D. v. W.H. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Gill v. Gill green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Quenzer v. Quenzer green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Ayling v. Ayling green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Quenzer v. Quenzer green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| City of Oxnard v. Bellah neutral | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.