262 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2026 22 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vaughn v. Stategreen2 sentences2012We thus refine our earlier stated standard of review to include the abuse of discretion standard by which we must review the district court's decision to grant equitable relief; We have said that an appropriate exercise of discretion occurs when "'conclusions [are] drawn from objective criteria, [and] sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the ciream-stances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously. " In re Worker's Compensation Claim of Shryack, 3 P.3d 850, 855 (Wyo.2000) (quoting Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998)). 2009Accordingly, we conclude that the appropriate standard for reviewing the juvenile court's decision is the abuse of discretion standard. [T16] In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, "the ultimate issue is whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did." Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998). [DJecisions of the trial court with respect to the admissibility of evidence are entitled to considerable deference and, as long as there exists a legitimate basis for the trial court's ruling, that ruling will not be reversed on appeal. | 15 | 15 |
Griswold v. Stategreen2 sentences2017“Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means exercising sound judgment with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily and capriciously.” Id. (quoting Griswold v. State, 2001 WY 14, ¶ 7 , 17 P.3d 728, 731 (Wyo. 2001)). 2017“Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means exercising sound judgment with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily and capriciously.” Id. (quoting Griswold v. State, 2001 WY 14, ¶ 7 , 17 P.3d 728, 731 (Wyo. 2001)). | 9 | 9 |
Johnston v. Stephensongreen2 sentences2005Johnston v. Stephenson, 938 P.2d 861, 862 (Wyo.1997); Burd v. State ex rel. 2002Schlesinger, 2001 WY 120, ¶ 21 , 35 P.3d 1232 (quoting Johnston v. Stephenson, 938 P.2d 861, 862-63 (Wyo.1997)) (some citations omitted). | 5 | 6 |
In Re Adoption of TLCgreen2 sentences2016In the Matter of Adoption of TLC, TOC v. TND, 2002 WY 76, ¶ 9 , 46 P.3d 863, 867-68 (Wyo. 2002). 2016In the Matter of Adoption of TLC, TOC v. TND, 2002 WY 76, ¶ 9 , 46 P.3d 863, 867-68 (Wyo. 2002). | 5 | 5 |
Burton v. Stategreen2 sentences2007In deciding whether or not a trial court abused its discretion, this court must "determine whether the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious." Burton v. State, 2002 WY 71, ¶ 44 , 46 P.3d 309, ¶ 44 (Wyo.2002) (citing Cook v. State, 7 P.3d 53, 58-59 (Wyo.2000) and Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 152 (Wyo.1998)). 2007In deciding whether or not a trial court abused its discretion, this court must "determine whether the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious." Burton v. State, 2002 WY 71, ¶ 44 , 46 P.3d 309, ¶ 44 (Wyo.2002) (citing Cook v. State, 7 P.3d 53, 58-59 (Wyo.2000) and Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 152 (Wyo.1998)). | 5 | 5 |
France v. Francegreen2 sentences2005France v. France, 902 P.2d 701, 703 (Wyo.1995); Neuman v. Neuman, 842 P.2d 575, 578 (Wyo.1992); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 456 P.2d 243, 247 (Wyo.1964 [1969]). 2005France v. France, 902 P.2d 701, 703 (Wyo.1995); Neuman v. Neuman, 842 P.2d 575, 578 (Wyo.1992); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 456 P.2d 243, 247 (Wyo.1964 [1969]). | 5 | 5 |
Neuman v. Neumangreen2 sentences2005France v. France, 902 P.2d 701, 703 (Wyo.1995); Neuman v. Neuman, 842 P.2d 575, 578 (Wyo.1992); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 456 P.2d 243, 247 (Wyo.1964 [1969]). 2005France v. France, 902 P.2d 701, 703 (Wyo.1995); Neuman v. Neuman, 842 P.2d 575, 578 (Wyo.1992); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 456 P.2d 243, 247 (Wyo.1964 [1969]). | 5 | 5 |
Grove v. Pfistergreen2 sentences2025“An abuse of discretion can [also] exist if the wrong law has been applied, the correct law has been applied but incorrectly interpreted, or if the correct law has been improperly applied.” Grove v. Pfister, 2005 WY 51, ¶ 6 , 110 P.3d 275, 278 (Wyo. 2005); see also, Finley Res., Inc. v. EP Energy E&P Co., L.P., 2019 WY 65 , ¶ 7, 443 P.3d 838, 842 (Wyo. 2019). 2025“An abuse of discretion can [also] exist if the wrong law has been applied, the correct law has been applied but incorrectly interpreted, or if the correct law has been improperly applied.” Grove v. Pfister, 2005 WY 51, ¶ 6 , 110 P.3d 275, 278 (Wyo. 2005); see also, Finley Res., Inc. v. EP Energy E&P Co., L.P., 2019 WY 65 , ¶ 7, 443 P.3d 838, 842 (Wyo. 2019). | 4 | 4 |
John Leslie Chapman v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2025“A court abuses its discretion only when it could not reasonably decide as it did.” Steffey, ¶ 18, 449 P.3d at 1105 , (citing Berger, ¶ 7, 399 P.3d at 623 and Venard v. Jackson Hole Paragliding, LLC, 2013 WY 8, ¶ 6 , 292 P.3d 165 , 168 (Wyo. 2013)); see also, Chapman v. State, 2013 WY 57, ¶ 52 , 300 P.3d 864, 874 (Wyo. 2013) (under the abuse of discretion standard, we decide “whether the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious” (quotations omitted)). 2025“A court abuses its discretion only when it could not reasonably decide as it did.” Steffey, ¶ 18, 449 P.3d at 1105 , (citing Berger, ¶ 7, 399 P.3d at 623 and Venard v. Jackson Hole Paragliding, LLC, 2013 WY 8, ¶ 6 , 292 P.3d 165 , 168 (Wyo. 2013)); see also, Chapman v. State, 2013 WY 57, ¶ 52 , 300 P.3d 864, 874 (Wyo. 2013) (under the abuse of discretion standard, we decide “whether the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious” (quotations omitted)). | 4 | 4 |
Finley Res., Inc. v. Ep Energy E&P Co.green2 sentences2025“An abuse of discretion can [also] exist if the wrong law has been applied, the correct law has been applied but incorrectly interpreted, or if the correct law has been improperly applied.” Grove v. Pfister, 2005 WY 51, ¶ 6 , 110 P.3d 275, 278 (Wyo. 2005); see also, Finley Res., Inc. v. EP Energy E&P Co., L.P., 2019 WY 65 , ¶ 7, 443 P.3d 838, 842 (Wyo. 2019). 2025“An abuse of discretion can [also] exist if the wrong 4 law has been applied, the correct law has been applied but incorrectly interpreted, or if the correct law has been improperly applied.” Grove v. Pfister, 2005 WY 51, ¶ 6 , 110 P.3d 275, 278 (Wyo. 2005); see also, Finley Res., Inc. v. EP Energy E&P Co., L.P., 2019 WY 65 , ¶ 7, 443 P.3d 838, 842 (Wyo. 2019). | 4 | 4 |
Ceja v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Washington v. State, 2011 WY 132, ¶ 11 , 261 P.3d 717, 721 (Wyo. 2011); Ceja v. State, 2009 WY 71, ¶ 11 , 208 P.3d 66, 68 (Wyo. 2009); Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 303 (Wyo. 1999); Dodge v. State, 562 P.2d 303, 307 (Wyo. 1977). 2019Washington v. State, 2011 WY 132, ¶ 11 , 261 P.3d 717, 721 (Wyo. 2011); Ceja v. State, 2009 WY 71, ¶ 11 , 208 P.3d 66, 68 (Wyo. 2009); Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 303 (Wyo. 1999); Dodge v. State, 562 P.2d 303, 307 (Wyo. 1977). | 4 | 4 |
Dodge v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Washington v. State, 2011 WY 132, ¶ 11 , 261 P.3d 717, 721 (Wyo. 2011); Ceja v. State, 2009 WY 71, ¶ 11 , 208 P.3d 66, 68 (Wyo. 2009); Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 303 (Wyo. 1999); Dodge v. State, 562 P.2d 303, 307 (Wyo. 1977). 2011Ceja v. State, 2009 WY 71, ¶ 11 , 208 P.3d 66, 68 (Wyo.2009); Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 303 (Wyo.1999); Dodge v. State, 562 P.2d 303, 307 (Wyo.1977). | 4 | 4 |
Cook v. Stategreen2 sentences2007In deciding whether or not a trial court abused its discretion, this court must "determine whether the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious." Burton v. State, 2002 WY 71, ¶ 44 , 46 P.3d 309, ¶ 44 (Wyo.2002) (citing Cook v. State, 7 P.3d 53, 58-59 (Wyo.2000) and Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 152 (Wyo.1998)). 2004In deciding whether or not a trial court abused its discretion, this court must "determine whether the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious." Herrera , at ¶ 10; see also Burton v. State, 2002 WY 71, ¶ 44 , 46 P.3d 309, ¶ 44 (Wyo.2002); Cook v. State, 7 P.3d 53, 58-59 (Wyo.2000); Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 152 (Wyo.1998). [¶ 13] In Kitzke v. State, 2002 WY 147, ¶ 9 , 55 P.3d 696, ¶ 9 (Wyo.2002) (quoting Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1112-13 (Wyo.1993)), we recognized: The examination of a claim of ineffective assi | 4 | 4 |
Kennedy v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2005France v. France, 902 P.2d 701, 703 (Wyo.1995); Neuman v. Neuman, 842 P.2d 575, 578 (Wyo.1992); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 456 P.2d 243, 247 (Wyo.1964 [1969]). 2005France v. France, 902 P.2d 701, 703 (Wyo.1995); Neuman v. Neuman, 842 P.2d 575, 578 (Wyo.1992); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 456 P.2d 243, 247 (Wyo.1964 [1969]). | 3 | 4 |
Almada v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Washington v. State, 2011 WY 132, ¶ 11 , 261 P.3d 717, 721 (Wyo. 2011); Ceja v. State, 2009 WY 71, ¶ 11 , 208 P.3d 66, 68 (Wyo. 2009); Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 303 (Wyo. 1999); Dodge v. State, 562 P.2d 303, 307 (Wyo. 1977). 2011Ceja v. State, 2009 WY 71, ¶ 11 , 208 P.3d 66, 68 (Wyo.2009); Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 303 (Wyo.1999); Dodge v. State, 562 P.2d 303, 307 (Wyo.1977). | 3 | 3 |
Lawson v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Under an abuse of discretion standard, "the ultimate issue is whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did." Breazeale v. State, 2011 WY 10, ¶ 30 , 245 P.3d 834, 843 (Wyo.2011) (quoting Lawson v. State, 994 P.2d 943, 947 (Wyo.2000)). 2011Under an abuse of discretion standard, "the ultimate issue is whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did." Breazeale v. State, 2011 WY 10, ¶ 30 , 245 P.3d 834, 843 (Wyo.2011) (quoting Lawson v. State, 994 P.2d 943, 947 (Wyo.2000)). | 3 | 3 |
Ramirez v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Lawson v. State, 994 P.2d 943, 946-47 (Wyo.2000). "[A] mistrial is an extreme and drastic remedy which should be resorted to only when there has been an error so prejudicial that justice could not be served by; continuing the trial": Ramirez v. State, 739 P.2d 1214, 1220 (Wyo.1987). 1995Ramirez v. State, 739 P.2d 1214, 1219 (Wyo.1987); Scadden v. State, 732 P.2d 1036, 1049 (Wyo.1987). | 3 | 3 |
Meyer v. Mulligangreen2 sentences2015Meyer v. Mulligan, 889 P.2d 509, 517 (Wyo.1995). 2002Bender v. Phillips, 8 P.3d 1074, 1077 (Wyo.2000) (citing Meyer v. Mulligan, 889 P.2d 509, 517 (Wyo.1995)). | 3 | 3 |
Reagan v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Reagan v. State, 14 P.3d 925, 927 (Wyo.2000). 2002SPEEDY SENTENCING [¶ 29] We review speedy sentencing claims under an abuse of discretion standard. *38 Reagan v. State, 14 P.3d 925, 927 (Wyo.2000). | 3 | 3 |
In Re Worker's Compensation Claim of Shryackgreen2 sentences2012We thus refine our earlier stated standard of review to include the abuse of discretion standard by which we must review the district court's decision to grant equitable relief; We have said that an appropriate exercise of discretion occurs when "'conclusions [are] drawn from objective criteria, [and] sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the ciream-stances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously. " In re Worker's Compensation Claim of Shryack, 3 P.3d 850, 855 (Wyo.2000) (quoting Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998)). 2000Shryack v. Carr Construction Company, Inc., 3 P.3d 850, 855 (Wyo.2000). | 3 | 3 |
| Vit v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
| Allen v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
| Herrera v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
| Miller v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
| Madrid v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
Schreibvogel v. Stategreen2 sentences2024When applying the abuse of discretion standard of review, we examine “‘the reasonableness of the [district] court’s choice,’ in ruling on the matter.” Schreibvogel, ¶ 12, 228 P.3d at 880 (quoting Gould v. State, 2006 WY 157, ¶ 8 , 151 P.3d 261, 264 (Wyo. 2006)). 2020See also Lajeunesse, ¶ 12, 458 P.3d at 1218 (“[Gleason] analysis is intended to be conducted by the trial court, and we do not apply it anew on appeal.” (quoting Mayhew, ¶ 27, 438 P.3d at 624 )); Schreibvogel v. State, 2010 WY 45, ¶ 33 , 228 P.3d 874, 885 (Wyo. 2010) (“[A]pplication of an abuse of discretion standard is difficult, if not impossible, in a situation where the [Rule 404(b)] issue is not brought to the attention of the district court for an evidentiary ruling.”). | 2 | 4 |
Sweat v. Sweatgreen2 sentences2014Sweat v. Sweat, 2003 WY 82, ¶ 6 , 72 P.3d 276, 278 (Wyo.2003). 2014Sweat v. Sweat, 2003 WY 82, ¶ 6 , 72 P.3d 276, 278 (Wyo.2003). | 2 | 3 |
| Reay v. Stategreen | 2 | 3 |
| Laura Christine Gardels N/K/A Laura Christine Birt v. Phillip Joseph Bowlinggreen | 2 | 2 |
| Michael Delwin Vinson v. The State of Wyominggreen | 2 | 2 |
| Mayhew v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Commonwealth v. Delbridgegreen | 2 | 2 |
| Garrison v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Washington v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| CL v. MLgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Lacey v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Carlton v. Carltongreen | 2 | 2 |
| Budder v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Schade v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Fix v. South Wilderness Ranch HomeOwners Assn.green | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
General Electric Co. v. Joiner
green
2 sentences2008Our opinion in Joiner [General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 , 118 S.Ct. 512 , 189 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) ] makes clear that a court of appeals is to apply an abuse-of-discretion standard when it "review[s] a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony." 522 U.S. at 138-39 , 118 S.Ct. 512 , 139 LEd.2d 508. 2008Our opinion in Joiner [General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 , 118 S.Ct. 512 , 189 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) ] makes clear that a court of appeals is to apply an abuse-of-discretion standard when it "review[s] a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony." 522 U.S. at 138-39 , 118 S.Ct. 512 , 139 LEd.2d 508. | 5 | 1999–2008 |
Kirk Erwin Steffey v. The State of Wyoming
green
2 sentences2025“A court abuses its discretion only when it could not reasonably decide as it did.” Steffey, ¶ 18, 449 P.3d at 1105 , (citing Berger, ¶ 7, 399 P.3d at 623 and Venard v. Jackson Hole Paragliding, LLC, 2013 WY 8, ¶ 6 , 292 P.3d 165 , 168 (Wyo. 2013)); see also, Chapman v. State, 2013 WY 57, ¶ 52 , 300 P.3d 864, 874 (Wyo. 2013) (under the abuse of discretion standard, we decide “whether the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious” (quotations omitted)). 2025“A court abuses its discretion only when it could not reasonably decide as it did.” Steffey, ¶ 18, 449 P.3d at 1105 , (citing Berger, ¶ 7, 399 P.3d at 623 and Venard v. Jackson Hole Paragliding, LLC, 2013 WY 8, ¶ 6 , 292 P.3d 165 , 168 (Wyo. 2013)); see also, Chapman v. State, 2013 WY 57, ¶ 52 , 300 P.3d 864, 874 (Wyo. 2013) (under the abuse of discretion standard, we decide “whether the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious” (quotations omitted)). | 3 | 2020–2025 |
Forbes v. State
green
2 sentences2019Forbes v. State , 2009 WY 146 , ¶ 6, 220 P.3d 510 , 512 (Wyo. 2009) (citation omitted). 2019Forbes v. State , 2009 WY 146 , ¶ 6, 220 P.3d 510 , 512 (Wyo. 2009) (citation omitted). | 3 | 2018–2019 |
| Davis v. State green | 2 | 2018–2021 |
| Vigil v. State green | 2 | 1997–2018 |
| Sanning v. Sanning green | 2 | 2011–2013 |
| Blakely v. Blakely green | 2 | 2011–2011 |
| Ingersoll v. State green | 2 | 2006–2008 |
| English v. State green | 2 | 1999–2002 |
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.