Wyo. Stat. » Wyo. Stat. / Title 16 - City, County, State and Local Powers / Chapter 1 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION / Article 1 - IN GENERAL
Wyoming Statutes

Wyo. Stat. § 16-1-101 (2026)

Authority to cooperate.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WY-LEGwyoleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
In exercising, performing or carrying out any power, privilege,
authority, duty or function legally vested in any one (1) or
more of them by Wyoming law, the state of Wyoming, and any one
(1) or more of its counties, municipal corporations, school
districts, special districts, public institutions, agencies,
boards, commissions and political subdivisions, and any officer
or legal representative of any one (1) or more of them, may
cooperate with and assist each other, and like entities or
authorities of other states, the United States and the Eastern
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes of the Wind River Indian
Reservation. Cooperation may be informal or subject to
resolution, ordinance or other appropriate action, and may be
embodied in a written agreement specifying purposes, duration,
means of financing, methods of operations, termination,
acquisition and disposition of property, employment of executive
and subordinate agents, reciprocation of governmental immunity
protections or other limitations of liability pursuant to W.S.
16-1-104(f) and other appropriate provisions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1978–2003 · leading case: Bereman v. Bereman, 645 P.2d 1155 (Wyo. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bereman v. Bereman, 645 P.2d 1155 (Wyo. 1982). · cites it 5× “The record reflects that John Bereman's attorney did object to Loujen Bereman's testimony because, among other reasons, it violated § 16-1-101, supra. The court at that point reserved ruling upon the objection, but then later sustained it.”
L.U. Sheep Co. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 790 P.2d 663 (Wyo. 1990). · cites it 4× “Section 16-1-101, W.S.1977, upon which the Kelloggs and L.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Crow, 2003 WY 40 (Wyo. 2003). · cites it 2× “On remand this factual issue must, of course, be resolved by the fact-finder.”
Weston Cnty. Hosp. Jt. Powers Bd. v. Westates Constr. Co., 841 P.2d 841 (Wyo. 1992). · cites it 4× “Wyo.Stat. § 16-1-101 to -109. We hold that the Board does not comply with even the threshold criteria for identification as a "political subdivision," as articulated in Witzenburger , and we need not review the claims of the Board concerning the constitutional demands and…”
Kinnison v. Kinnison, 627 P.2d 594 (Wyo. 1981). · cites it 2× “The suggestion that the consideration was in an oral agreement to acquire and develop real property not only fails because of its affinity to the pseudo-marriage relationship which was illegal, immoral and contrary to public policy, but it also fails as being contrary to §…”
Kvenild v. Taylor, 594 P.2d 972 (Wyo. 1979). “4 The defendants assert that the district court’s judgment is erroneous because: *974 (1) The decision is not supported by the evidence submitted at trial and is, in fact, contrary to the evidence; (2) The district court created rights in the Lavoies that cannot exist under the…”
Lambousis v. Johnston, 657 P.2d 358 (Wyo. 1983). · cites it 4× “Section 16-1-101, W.S.1977, the statute of frauds, now recodified as § 1-23-105, Cum.”
Kincheloe v. Milatzo, 678 P.2d 855 (Wyo. 1984). “The pertinent portion of the statute of frauds, § 16-1-101 (now renumbered as § 1-23-105), W.”
Remilong v. Crolla, 576 P.2d 461 (Wyo. 1978). “Appellants assert that the oral agreement which the court found to exist is within the prohibition of two subsections of the statute of frauds, § 16-1-101, W.S.1977: “(i) Every agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within one (1) year from the making thereof;” “(v)…”
Colorado Nat'l Bank v. Miles, 711 P.2d 390 (Wyo. 1985). “The court quoted § 16-1-101, W.S.1977, which requires an agreement or contract for the sale of real estate to be “in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith.”
Cates v. Daniels, 628 P.2d 862 (Wyo. 1981). · cites it 2× “DANIELS RATIFY THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR LOT 30? As previously stated, the trial court made a specific finding that the agreement for the sale of the Sunset residence signed by the Danielses was separate and distinct from the agreement for the purchase of Lot 30 which was…”
— Wyo. Stat. § 16-1-101(a)(i) — 2 cases
Bereman v. Bereman, 645 P.2d 1155 (Wyo. 1982). “The record reflects that John Bereman's attorney did object to Loujen Bereman's testimony because, among other reasons, it violated § 16-1-101, supra. The court at that point reserved ruling upon the objection, but then later sustained it.”
Lambousis v. Johnston, 657 P.2d 358 (Wyo. 1983). “Section 16-1-101, W.S.1977, the statute of frauds, now recodified as § 1-23-105, Cum.”
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.