28 U.S.C. § 131
Wyoming
Wyoming and those portions of Yellowstone National Park situated in Montana and Idaho constitute one judicial district.
Court shall be held at Casper, Cheyenne, Evanston, Lander, Jackson, and Sheridan.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Joseph Zicarelli v. Albert D. Gray, Jr., Superintendent, New Jersey State Prison
Joseph Zicarelli v. Albert D. Gray, Jr., Superintendent, New Jersey State Prison (1976)
“The principle adopted in 1789 — that a judicial district shall not include portions of two or more states— has been followed almost uniformly to the present day, although exceptions exist, see 28 U.S.C. § 131 (1970). . Blume, supra note 3, at 66.”
Lopez v. Delta Int'l Mach. Corp. (2018)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 131 ("Wyoming and those portions of Yellowstone National Park situated in Montana and Idaho constitute one judicial district.”
United States v. Anderson (1983)
“28 U.S.C. § 131 . Accordingly, the Wyoming divisions are those where court is held under the district plan, so long as each county is included in such a division.”
Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians v. Utah (2005)
“As they did below, defendants first cite to 28 U.S.C. § 131 (h), which, as noted above, purports to make the HBA applicable to “[a]ll public lands or reservations, of the-United States which are adjacent to any portion of the Interstate System and the primary system.”
Hayes v. Shelby County Trustee (2013)
“Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 131 *5 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1345 only applies to civil cases where the United States is the plaintiff.”
L & W Outdoor Advertising Co. v. State (1989)
“" 28 U.S.C. § 131 (d). In order to insure that the individual states would actively participate in the program, Congress provided for a ten percent reduction in a state's apportionment of federal highway funds should the Secretary of the Department of Transportation determine…”
St. Louis Park Post No. 5632 v. City of St. Louis Park (2004)
“17(c) (2002) *407 and the federal Highway Beautification Act, 28 U.S.C. § 131 (g) (2000), the city owed Clear Channel compensation for the removal of the billboard.”
Harbor Advertising, Inc. v. Department of Transportation (2010)
“Section 181(d) of the Beautification Act, 28 U.S.C. § 131 (d), provides: In order to promote the reasonable, orderly and effective display of outdoor advertising while remaining consistent with the purposes of this section, signs, displays, and devices whose size, lighting and…”
Neighbors Against Bison Slaughter v. National Park Service (2019)
“The plaintiffs contend that because the bison migrate from Yellowstone, which is within the judicial district of Wyoming, 28 U.S.C. § 131 , this case is not local to Montana.”
Anokhin v. Foss Energy Services, Inc. (2025)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 131 . Thus, based on the allegations in the complaint, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, and not this court, is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).”
Anokhin v. Foss Energy Services Inc (2025)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 131 . Thus, based on the allegations in the complaint, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, and not this court, is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).”
Indiana State Highway Commission v. Amoco Oil Co. (1986)
“*327 FACTS Prior to the events in question here, Congress announced its intention to "promote the safety and recreational value of public travel, and to preserve natural beauty" by enacting the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 131 (1982). In order to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.