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 1971–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Beit Hanina Enterprises, Inc. v. Moffettgreen2 sentences2025Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo. 1985)); see also In re Estate of Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d 1070, 1074 (Wyo. 2011) (recognizing a defendant’s fraud as a basis to bar assertion of a limitations defense). [¶28] A plaintiff asserting equitable estoppel must establish three elements: the delay in filing the action was induced by the defendant; the defendant misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff “acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner.” Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d at 1074 (citing Turner v. Turne 2025Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo. 1985)); see also In re Estate of Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d 1070, 1074 (Wyo. 2011) (recognizing a defendant’s fraud as a basis to bar assertion of a limitations defense). [¶28] A plaintiff asserting equitable estoppel must establish three elements: the delay in filing the action was induced by the defendant; the defendant misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff “acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner.” Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d at 1074 (citing Turner v. Turne | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Turnergreen1 sentence2025Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo. 1985)); see also In re Estate of Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d 1070, 1074 (Wyo. 2011) (recognizing a defendant’s fraud as a basis to bar assertion of a limitations defense). [¶28] A plaintiff asserting equitable estoppel must establish three elements: the delay in filing the action was induced by the defendant; the defendant misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff “acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner.” Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d at 1074 (citing Turner v. Turne | 1 | 1 |
Olson v. AH Robins Co., Inc.green1 sentence2025Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo. 1985)); see also In re Estate of Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d 1070, 1074 (Wyo. 2011) (recognizing a defendant’s fraud as a basis to bar assertion of a limitations defense). [¶28] A plaintiff asserting equitable estoppel must establish three elements: the delay in filing the action was induced by the defendant; the defendant misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff “acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner.” Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d at 1074 (citing Turner v. Turne | 1 | 1 |
Inman v. Boykingreen2 sentences2025Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo. 1985)); see also In re Estate of Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d 1070, 1074 (Wyo. 2011) (recognizing a defendant’s fraud as a basis to bar assertion of a limitations defense). [¶28] A plaintiff asserting equitable estoppel must establish three elements: the delay in filing the action was induced by the defendant; the defendant misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff “acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner.” Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d at 1074 (citing Turner v. Turne 2025Robins Co., Inc., 696 P.2d 1294, 1299 (Wyo. 1985)); see also In re Estate of Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d 1070, 1074 (Wyo. 2011) (recognizing a defendant’s fraud as a basis to bar assertion of a limitations defense). [¶28] A plaintiff asserting equitable estoppel must establish three elements: the delay in filing the action was induced by the defendant; the defendant misled the plaintiff; and the plaintiff “acted on the misinformation in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in a timely manner.” Graves, 2011 WY 165, ¶ 14 , 267 P.3d at 1074 (citing Turner v. Turne | 1 | 1 |
Ryan v. Statered2 sentences2003That court determined that it would define the limitations of immunity as it pertains to the executive branch of government "on the basis of concrete, factual situations as they come before us." Id., at 600. 2003The victim sustained permanent and disabling injuries That court determined that it would define the limitations of immunity as it pertains to the executive branch of government "on the basis of concrete, factual situations as they come before us." Id., at 600. | 1 | 1 |
Roose v. Stategreen2 sentences1999The limitations of the exception with regard to the search of the arrested person were explained in Roose v. State, 759 P.2d 478, 482 (Wyo.1988) (citing Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. at 762-63 , 89 S.Ct. at 2040 ). 1999The limitations of the exception with regard to the search of the arrested person were explained in Roose v. State, 759 P.2d 478, 482 (Wyo.1988) (citing Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. at 762-63 , 89 S.Ct. at 2040 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chimel v. California
red
2 sentences1999The limitations of the exception with regard to the search of the arrested person were explained in Roose v. State, 759 P.2d 478, 482 (Wyo.1988) (citing Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. at 762-63 , 89 S.Ct. at 2040 ). 1999The limitations of the exception with regard to the search of the arrested person were explained in Roose v. State, 759 P.2d 478, 482 (Wyo.1988) (citing Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. at 762-63 , 89 S.Ct. at 2040 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Gates v. Richardson
green
1 sentence1995Whether the claim of appellant comes within the limitations of the rule in Gates v. Richardson [ 719 P.2d 193 (Wyo.1986) ]. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Rafferty v. Northern Utilities Co.
green
1 sentence1972These were succinctly stated in Rafferty v. Northern Utilities Company, 73 Wyo, 287, 278 P.2d 605 , 611: (1) the apparatus must be such that in the ordinary instance no injurious operation is to be expected unless from a careless construction inspection, or user; (2) both inspection and user must have been at the time of the injury in the control of the party charged; 3 (3) the injurious occurrence or condition must have happened irrespective of any voluntary action at the time by the party injured. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Burnell v. Roush
green
1 sentence1971While we touched upon these respective contentions in the general discussion in Burnell v. Roush, Wyo., 404 P.2d 836 , and pointed out certain generally recognized rules of the common law and the limitations of the rule, our consideration was necessarily confined to the theory of all parties that plaintiff did or did not acquire a one-fourth interest as a tenant in common to the minerals excepted from a deed executed during coverture by the owner-husband and his spouse, who were later divorced. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.