Meyer v. Mulligan
In Meyer v. Mulligan, 889 P.2d 509 (Wyo. 1995), the Court found that the attorney, Mulligan, was required to provide expert evidence on the lack of proximate cause to succeed at summary judgment. Id. at 516.
Ultimately the Court held, "because Mulligan's motion for summary judgment failed to include expert evidence showing that his alleged breach was not the proximate cause of Link's or the Meyers' injury, he was not entitled to summary judgment as against either." Id. at 516-17.