YOUNG v. HAC

13 Citing cases

  1. Jontra Holdings v. Gas Sensing Tech. Corp.

    2021 WY 17 (Wyo. 2021)   Cited 25 times

    Because that finding is a threshold requirement of Rule 804, we will begin our review there. See Young v. HAC, LLC , 2001 WY 50, ¶ 9, 24 P.3d 1142, 1145 (Wyo. 2001) ("We will not determine if the substantive requirements of W.R.E. 804(b) were met, unless the threshold eligibility of the unavailability request is demonstrated."). We will then turn to the admissibility of the testimony under the rules on which the court based its determination, and Plaintiffs’ claim that the admission of Mr. Linklater's testimony violated their due process rights because they had no opportunity to cross-examine him.

  2. PRG v. State, Department of Family Services

    2012 WY 100 (Wyo. 2012)   Cited 13 times

    We must ask ourselves whether the district court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious.Young v. HAC, LLC, 2001 WY 50, ¶ 6, 24 P.3d 1142, 1144 (Wyo.2001) (quoting Carlton v. Carlton, 997 P.2d 1028, 1031 (Wyo.2000)).Pauley, ¶ 7, 92 P.3d at 822.

  3. HJO v. State

    2012 WY 99 (Wyo. 2012)   Cited 15 times
    Finding that § 14–3–431(o ) did not apply when there was no finding in the juvenile court with respect to the statutory provisions in § 14–3–431(o )

    We must ask ourselves whether the district court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious. Young v. HAC, LLC, 2001 WY 50, ¶ 6, 24 P.3d 1142, 1144 (Wyo.2001) (quoting Carlton v. Carlton, 997 P.2d 1028, 1031 (Wyo.2000)).Pauley, ¶ 7, 92 P.3d at 822.

  4. Pauley v. Newman

    92 P.3d 819 (Wyo. 2004)   Cited 8 times

    We must ask ourselves whether the district court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious."Young v. HAC, LLC, 2001 WY 50, ¶ 6, 24 P.3d 1142, 1144 (Wyo. 2001) ( quoting Carlton v. Carlton, 997 P.2d 1028, 1031 (Wyo. 2000)). DISCUSSION

  5. In the Matter of George

    77 P.3d 1219 (Wyo. 2003)   Cited 5 times

    We must ask ourselves whether the district court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious."Young v. HAC, LLC, 2001 WY 50, ¶ 6, 24 P.3d 1142, 1144 (Wyo. 2001) ( quoting Carlton v. Carlton, 997 P.2d 1028, 1031 (Wyo. 2000) and Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo. 1998)). [¶ 11] We note at the outset that the appellants have provided neither a transcript of the hearing on the referenced petition pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.02 nor a statement of the evidence pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03, and it does not appear that they requested special findings of fact and conclusions of law under W.R.C.P. 52(a).

  6. Odegard v. Odegard

    2003 WY 67 (Wyo. 2003)   Cited 18 times

    It is agreed by both parties that the letter constitutes hearsay evidence and is in the nature of parol evidence. The admission of evidence, including the admission of hearsay, is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not disturb evidentiary rulings unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated. Young v. HAC, LLC, 2001 WY 50, ¶ 6, 24 P.3d 1142, ¶ 6 (Wyo. 2001). [¶ 15] Husband contends that the letter was admissible because it met the requirements of W.R.E. 804(b)(6) (also see W.R.E 803(24)):

  7. Allen v. State

    2002 WY 48 (Wyo. 2002)   Cited 41 times

    " Young v. HAC, LLC, 2001 WY 50, ¶ 6, 24 P.3d 1142, 1144 (Wyo. 2001) ( quoting Carlton v. Carlton, 997 P.2d 1028, 1031 (Wyo. 2000)). In this respect, we give considerable deference to the trial court's rulings.

  8. Lancaster v. State

    2002 WY 45 (Wyo. 2002)   Cited 72 times
    In Lancaster v. State, 2002 WY 45, ¶ 22, 43 P.3d 80, 91 (Wyo. 2002), we undertook a brief discussion concerning a party's contention that a prior consistent statement may be admissible even when not offered to rebut one of the claims specified in 801(d)(1)(B).

    These general rules apply to rulings on the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Young v. HAC, LLC, 2001 WY 50, ¶ 6, 24 P.3d 1142, 1144 (Wyo. 2001); Robinson, 11 P.3d at 367. W.R.E. 801(d)(1)(b)

  9. Garnick v. Teton Co. Sch. Dist. No. 1

    39 P.3d 1034 (Wyo. 2002)   Cited 11 times
    Concluding trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial based on refusal to poll jury when complaining party failed to object or ask for poll

    Error in Admission of Evidence of an Improper Collateral Source [¶ 13] The admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not disturb evidentiary rulings unless the appellant demonstrates a clear abuse of discretion. Young v. HAC, LLC, 2001 WY 50, ¶ 6, 24 P.3d 1142, ¶ 6 (Wyo. 2001). The core of our inquiry must reach the question of the reasonableness of the choice made by the trial court.

  10. Schlesinger v. Woodcock

    2001 WY 120 (Wyo. 2001)   Cited 16 times
    In Schlesinger v. Woodcock, 2001 WY 120, ¶ 21, 35 P.3d 1232, 1239 (Wyo. 2001), and Cline v. Rocky ML, Inc., 998 P.2d 946, 949 (Wyo. 2000), we affirmed attorney fee awards where contracts provided for such an award.

    " W.R.E. 401. "Admission of evidence . . . is within the sound discretion of the trial court; we will not disturb evidentiary rulings unless the appellant demonstrates a clear abuse of discretion." Young v. HAC, LLC, 2001 WY 50, ¶ 6, 24 P.3d 1142, ¶ 6 (Wyo. 2001); see also Brown v. Michael Pryor, M.D., P.C., 954 P.2d 1349, 1350 (Wyo. 1998). Ms. Schlesinger's bald assertion does not establish abuse of discretion, and we will not disturb the trial court's determination on this basis.