Wyo. Stat. » Wyo. Stat. / Title 01 - Civil Procedure / Chapter 30 - MANDAMUS / Article 8 - POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN GRANTED
Wyoming Statutes

Wyo. Stat. § 1-30-104 (2026)

Writ not to be issued if adequate remedy at law;

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WY-LEGwyoleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
party beneficially interested.

The writ must not be issued when there is an adequate remedy at
law. It may issue on the information of the party beneficially
interested.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1980–1999 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Epp v. Mayor, 894 P.2d 590 (Wyo. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Epp v. Mayor, 894 P.2d 590 (Wyo. 1995). · cites it 4× “1957 [now Wyo.Stat. § 1-30-104 (1988) ], we limited the writ of mandamus to those situations where there was no adequate remedy at law and pointed out that a right of appeal is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.”
Basin Elec. Power Coop. v. Bowen, 979 P.2d 503 (Wyo. 1999). · cites it 2× “” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-30-104 (Michie 1997).”
Wyoming Bd. of Equalization v. State Ex Rel. Basin Elec. Power Coop., 637 P.2d 248 (Wyo. 1981). · cites it 2× “[5] See also § 1-30-104, W.S. 1977, which provides: "The writ must not be issued when there is an adequate remedy at law.”
State ex rel. Sweetwater Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. One v. Ohman, 895 P.2d 49 (Wyo. 1995). · cites it 2× “” Wyo.Stat. § 1-30-104 (1988). We have said: [T]he writ of mandamus will issue only where the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation is peremptory and plainly defined.”
State ex rel. Feeney v. Dist. Court of the Seventh Jud. Dist., 607 P.2d 1259 (Wyo. 1980). · cites it 2× “” Section 1-30-104, W.S.1977. There is no remedy at law available.”
Painter v. Spurrier, 969 P.2d 548 (Wyo. 1998). “1997); W.S. 1-30-104 (1997). The Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act expressly provides that “any person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by * ⅜ * agency action or inaction * * ⅜ is entitled to judicial review in the district court.”
State ex rel. Squaw Mountain Cattle Co. v. Wheatland Irrigation Dist., 728 P.2d 172 (Wyo. 1986). · cites it 2× “Section 1-30-104, W.S.1977, provides that the writ should not issue where there is an adequate remedy at law.”
State Ex Rel. Feeney v. Dist. Ct of 7th Jud. Dist, 607 P.2d 1259 (Wyo. 1980). · cites it 2× “" Section 1-30-104, W.S. 1977. There is no remedy at law available.”
State Ex Rel. Sweetwater Cty. v. Ohman, 895 P.2d 49 (Wyo. 1995). “§ 1-30-104 (1988). We have said: [T]he writ of mandamus will issue only where the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation is peremptory and plainly defined.”
Mills v. Campbell Cnty. Canvassing Bd., 707 P.2d 747 (Wyo. 1985). · cites it 2× “Section 1-30-104, W.S.1977, provides that a writ of mandamus “must not be issued when there is an adequate remedy at law.”
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.