Wyoming Statutes

Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-114 (2026)

Statute of limitations.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WY-LEGwyoleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as otherwise provided, actions against a governmental
entity or a public employee acting within the scope of his
duties for torts occurring after June 30, 1979 which are subject
to this act shall be forever barred unless commenced within one
(1) year after the date the claim is filed pursuant to W.S.
1-39-113. In the case of a minor seven (7) years of age or
younger, actions against a governmental entity or public
employee acting within the scope of his duties for torts
occurring after June 30, 1979 which are subject to this act are
forever barred unless commenced within two (2) years after
occurrence or until his eighth birthday, whichever period is
greater. In no case shall the statute of limitations provided in
this section be longer than any other applicable statute of
limitations. In the absence of applicable insurance coverage, if
the claim was properly filed, the statute shall be tolled
forty-five (45) days after a decision by the entity, if the
decision was not made and mailed to the claimant within the
statutory time limitation otherwise provided herein.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Hall v. Park Cnty., 2010 WY 124 (Wyo. 2010).
Hall v. Park Cnty., 2010 WY 124 (Wyo. 2010). · cites it 33× “[¶ 1] This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing the appellant's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Finding no error, we similarly dismiss this appeal.”
Wyo. Guardianship Corp. v. Wyo. State Hosp., 428 P.3d 424 (Wyo. 2018). · cites it 8× “Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114 (LexisNexis 2017).”
Beaulieu v. Florquist, 2001 WY 33 (Wyo. 2001). · cites it 10× “56(c)? (2) Whether the Court committed, error in granting summary judgment where the record provided for review by the Court demonstrated genuine issues of contested material fact? (3) Insufficiency of claimed notice document or its filing procedure to start the statute of…”
Lankford v. City of Laramie, 2004 WY 143 (Wyo. 2004). · cites it 12× “1 The City’s central argument in support of its motion was that nearly twenty months passed between presentment of the first notice of claim on July 13, 2001, and filing of the complaint on February 28, 2003, in violation of Wyo.”
Brown v. City of Casper, 2011 WY 35 (Wyo. 2011). · cites it 6× “Brown to sue the City or Officer Walters within the time period specified in § 1-39-114 of the WGCA, the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”
Milton v. Mitchell, 762 P.2d 372 (Wyo. 1988). · cites it 14× “1987), is interchangeable with the term "scope of employment." Julian A. Milton, Jr.”
Beaulieu v. Florquist, 2004 WY 31 (Wyo. 2004). · cites it 4× “DISCUSSION Claimant’s Signature Certified to Under Penalty of Perjury [¶ 5] In Beaulieu I , the district court granted summary judgment to the appellees on the ground that the lawsuit was time barred by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114 . 3 *866 Beaulieu I , 2001 WY 33, ¶ 7 , 20 P.”
Bell v. Schell, 2004 WY 153 (Wyo. 2004). · cites it 5× “*469 Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114 . 2 . Wyo. Stat,.”
Boyer-gladden v. Hill, 2010 WY 12 (Wyo. 2010). · cites it 9× “Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114 (LexisNexis 2009).”
Wooster v. Carbon Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2005 WY 47 (Wyo. 2005). · cites it 4× “The amended claim was filed too late to meet the time requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114 . [2] The district court, noting that it had "some sympathy for the position Wooster finds himself in," granted the motion for summary judgment on the basis of a lack of subject…”
Nulle v. Gillette-Campbell Cnty. Jt. Powers Fire Bd., 797 P.2d 1171 (Wyo. 1990). · cites it 4× “Under W.S. 1-39-114 (Cum.Supp. 1987), she had to file an action by July 27, 1989.”
Gose v. City of Douglas, 2008 WY 126 (Wyo. 2008). · cites it 4× “The Goses filed their complaint on April 20, 2007, well within the one-year statute of limitations found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114 (LexisNexis 2007) 5 The dismissal order was entered on September 17, 2007.”
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.