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.
6 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Waid v. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2001Dep't of Transp., 996 P.2d 18, 25 (Wyo.2000), where we explained that "the time for filing a claim [under Wyo.Stat. § 1-89-113] is measured not from the date damage occurs, but from the date on which the 'act, error or omission' occurs, or when it is discovered by a claimant." In Waid, we held that the plaintiffs' claim was barred stating, "there was no new 'act, error or omission," or a fresh discovery of such that would cause the statutory time period to start anew." Id. (emphasis added). [1283] I think the plaintiff correctly relies on Metzger v. Kalke, 709 P.2d 414 (Wyo.1985), for the prop 2001Dep't of Transp., 996 P.2d 18, 25 (Wyo.2000), where we explained that "the time for filing a claim [under Wyo.Stat. § 1-39-113] is measured not from the date damage occurs, but from the date on which the `act, error or omission' occurs, or when it is discovered by a claimant." In Waid , we held that the plaintiffs' claim was barred stating, "there was no new `act, error or omission,' or a fresh discovery of such that would cause the statutory time period to start anew." Id. (emphasis added). [¶ 23] I think the plaintiff correctly relies on Metzger v. Kalke, 709 P.2d 414 (Wyo. 1985), for the pr | 1 | 1 |
Vigil v. Ruettgersgreen1 sentence1996Vigil v. Ruettgers, 887 P.2d 521, 524 (Wyo.1994); Duran v. Board of County Com’rs of Sweetwater County, 787 P.2d 971, 972 (Wyo.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Duran v. Board of County Commissionersgreen1 sentence1996Vigil v. Ruettgers, 887 P.2d 521, 524 (Wyo.1994); Duran v. Board of County Com’rs of Sweetwater County, 787 P.2d 971, 972 (Wyo.1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hochalter v. City of Gillette
green
2 sentences2008Citing Hochalter v. City of Gillette, 2005 WY 125 , 120 P.3d 674 (Wyo.2005), the City contends the notice was insufficient because it only "generically-described" the conduct giving rise to HCI's claims. [ś 23] Section 1-39-113 provides in pertinent part: (a) No action shall be brought under this act against a governmental entity unless the claim upon which the action is based is presented to the entity as an itemized statement in writing within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission.... (b) The claim shall state: (i) The time, place and circumstances of the alleged lo 2008Citing Hochalter v. City of Gillette, 2005 WY 125 , 120 P.3d 674 (Wyo.2005), the City contends the notice was insufficient because it only "generically-described" the conduct giving rise to HCI's claims. [ś 23] Section 1-39-113 provides in pertinent part: (a) No action shall be brought under this act against a governmental entity unless the claim upon which the action is based is presented to the entity as an itemized statement in writing within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission.... (b) The claim shall state: (i) The time, place and circumstances of the alleged lo | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Metzger v. Kalke
green
2 sentences2001Dep't of Transp., 996 P.2d 18, 25 (Wyo.2000), where we explained that "the time for filing a claim [under Wyo.Stat. § 1-89-113] is measured not from the date damage occurs, but from the date on which the 'act, error or omission' occurs, or when it is discovered by a claimant." In Waid, we held that the plaintiffs' claim was barred stating, "there was no new 'act, error or omission," or a fresh discovery of such that would cause the statutory time period to start anew." Id. (emphasis added). [1283] I think the plaintiff correctly relies on Metzger v. Kalke, 709 P.2d 414 (Wyo.1985), for the prop 2001Dep't of Transp., 996 P.2d 18, 25 (Wyo.2000), where we explained that "the time for filing a claim [under Wyo.Stat. § 1-39-113] is measured not from the date damage occurs, but from the date on which the `act, error or omission' occurs, or when it is discovered by a claimant." In Waid , we held that the plaintiffs' claim was barred stating, "there was no new `act, error or omission,' or a fresh discovery of such that would cause the statutory time period to start anew." Id. (emphasis added). [¶ 23] I think the plaintiff correctly relies on Metzger v. Kalke, 709 P.2d 414 (Wyo. 1985), for the pr | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Alewine v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Division of Public Assistance & Social Services
green
2 sentences1991Wyoming Statute 1-39-113 stated: "(a) No action shall be brought under this act against a governmental entity unless the claim upon which the action is based is presented to the entity as an itemized statement in writing within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission, except that a cause of *985 action may be instituted not more than two (2) years after discovery of the alleged act, error or omission, if the claimant can establish that the alleged act, error or omission was: "(i) Not reasonably discoverable within a two (2) year period; or "(ii) The claimant failed to d 1991Wyoming Statute 1-39-113 stated: “(a) No action shall be brought under this act against a governmental entity unless the claim upon which the action is based is presented to the entity as an itemized statement in writing within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission, except that a cause of action may be instituted not more than two (2) years after discovery of the alleged act, error or omission, if the claimant can establish that the alleged act, error or omission was: “(i) Not reasonably discoverable within a two (2) year period; or “(ii) The claimant failed to discov | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Awe Ex Rel. Awe v. University of Wyoming
green
1 sentence1991The effect of the absence of such a savings clause was resolved in Awe v. University of Wyoming, 534 P.2d 97 (Wyo.1975), which is a controlling precedent. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hamlin v. Transcon Lines
green
1 sentence1988NOTES [*] Retired June 30, 1988. [1] Section 1-39-113, W.S. 1977, (Cum.Supp. 1987), provides, in pertinent part: "(a) No action shall be brought under this act against a governmental entity unless the claim upon which the action is based is presented to the entity as an itemized statement in writing within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission, * * *." [2] Section 1-39-114, W.S. 1977 (Cum.Supp. 1987), provides, in pertinent part: "Except as otherwise provided, actions against a government entity or a public employee acting within the scope of his duties for torts occu | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Matthews v. Wyoming Department of Agriculture
green
1 sentence1988NOTES [*] Retired June 30, 1988. [1] Section 1-39-113, W.S. 1977, (Cum.Supp. 1987), provides, in pertinent part: "(a) No action shall be brought under this act against a governmental entity unless the claim upon which the action is based is presented to the entity as an itemized statement in writing within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission, * * *." [2] Section 1-39-114, W.S. 1977 (Cum.Supp. 1987), provides, in pertinent part: "Except as otherwise provided, actions against a government entity or a public employee acting within the scope of his duties for torts occu | 1 | 1988–1988 |
DeWald v. State
green
1 sentence1988NOTES [*] Retired June 30, 1988. [1] Section 1-39-113, W.S. 1977, (Cum.Supp. 1987), provides, in pertinent part: "(a) No action shall be brought under this act against a governmental entity unless the claim upon which the action is based is presented to the entity as an itemized statement in writing within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission, * * *." [2] Section 1-39-114, W.S. 1977 (Cum.Supp. 1987), provides, in pertinent part: "Except as otherwise provided, actions against a government entity or a public employee acting within the scope of his duties for torts occu | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Davis v. City of Casper
green
1 sentence1988NOTES [*] Retired June 30, 1988. [1] Section 1-39-113, W.S. 1977, (Cum.Supp. 1987), provides, in pertinent part: "(a) No action shall be brought under this act against a governmental entity unless the claim upon which the action is based is presented to the entity as an itemized statement in writing within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission, * * *." [2] Section 1-39-114, W.S. 1977 (Cum.Supp. 1987), provides, in pertinent part: "Except as otherwise provided, actions against a government entity or a public employee acting within the scope of his duties for torts occu | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hamlin v. Transcon Lines
green
1 sentence1988NOTES [*] Retired June 30, 1988. [1] Section 1-39-113, W.S. 1977, (Cum.Supp. 1987), provides, in pertinent part: "(a) No action shall be brought under this act against a governmental entity unless the claim upon which the action is based is presented to the entity as an itemized statement in writing within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission, * * *." [2] Section 1-39-114, W.S. 1977 (Cum.Supp. 1987), provides, in pertinent part: "Except as otherwise provided, actions against a government entity or a public employee acting within the scope of his duties for torts occu | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.