Wyoming Statutes

Wyo. Stat. § 3-2-104 (2026)

Appointment of guardian.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WY-LEGwyoleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The court may appoint a guardian if the allegations of
the petition as to the status of the proposed ward and the
necessity for the appointment of a guardian are proved by a
preponderance of the evidence.

     (b) The order appointing a guardian shall state the
findings of the court, including:

            (i)    The reasons why the ward is in need of a
guardian;

            (ii)    The appointment of the guardian;

          (iii) The duration of the appointment for a specified
term or permanent, subject to W.S. 3-3-1101;

            (iv)    The limited or plenary duties of the guardian.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2023 · leading case: In the Matter of Guardianship of Meo, 2006 WY 87 (Wyo. 2006).
In the Matter of Guardianship of Meo, 2006 WY 87 (Wyo. 2006). · cites it 8× “” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-104 (a). When making an appointment, the district court must articulate its findings regarding the necessity of the guardianship.”
In Re Srb-M, 2009 WY 22 (Wyo. 2009). · cites it 5× “[¶ 15] In MEO, the governing statute was Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-104 (a) (LexisNexis 2007), which provided as follows: § 3-2-104.”
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Mkh, Minor Child. Brenda Clark v. Aaron Huffer, 2016 WY 103 (Wyo. 2016). · cites it 2× “Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-104 (LexisNexis 2015).”
In Re Guardianship of Parkhurst, 2010 WY 155 (Wyo. 2010). · cites it 3× “Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-104 (LexisNexis 2009) provides: § 3-2-104.”
In the Interest of DMW v. TLW, 2009 WY 106 (Wyo. 2009). · cites it 2× “Best Interests of Children [916] Under Wyoming's guardianship statutes, the district court may appoint a guardian for a proposed minor ward when the "necessity for the appointment of a guardian" has been "prove[n] by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Madonna M. Flory v. Rand E. Flory, 2023 WY 29 (Wyo. 2023). · cites it 2× “” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-104 (b)(iii)-(iv) (LexisNexis 2021) (guardian); § 3-3-104(b)(iii)-(iv) (conservator).”
In Re Conservatorship of Cpr, 2009 WY 76 (Wyo. 2009). · cites it 2× “[¶ 13] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-104 (LexisNexis 2007) states, "The court may appoint a guardian if the allegations of the petition as to the status of the proposed ward and the necessity for the appointment of a guardian are proved by a preponderance of the evidence.”
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Robert A. Sands: Robert A. Sands v. Richard Brown, Guardian & Conservator, 2013 WY 60 (Wyo. 2013). “§ 3-2-104. Appointment of guardian. (a) The court may appoint a guardian if the allegations of the petition as to the status of the proposed ward and the necessity for the appointment of a guardian are proved by a preponderance of the evidence.”
In Re Guardianship of Bjo, 165 P.3d 442 (Wyo. 2007). · cites it 2× “Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-101 (a)Gi) and (v) (LexisNexis 2007).”
In the Matter of the Guardianship of LNP, a Minor Child: KC v. CC & EC, 2013 WY 20 (Wyo. 2013). “§ 3-2-104(b), based on the evidence presented at the hearing held on November 29.”
In Re Srb-M, 201 P.3d 1115 (Wyo. 2009). · cites it 5× “[¶15] In MEO, the governing statute was Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-104 (a) (LexisNexis 2007), which provided as follows: § 3-2-104.”
Boykin v. Parkhurst ex rel. Boykin, 243 P.3d 961 (Wyo. 2010). · cites it 3× “Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-104 (LexisNexis 2009) provides: § 3-2-104.”
— Wyo. Stat. § 3-2-104(a) — 2 cases
In Re Srb-M, 2009 WY 22 (Wyo. 2009). “[¶ 15] In MEO, the governing statute was Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-104 (a) (LexisNexis 2007), which provided as follows: § 3-2-104.”
In Re Srb-M, 201 P.3d 1115 (Wyo. 2009). “[¶15] In MEO, the governing statute was Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-104 (a) (LexisNexis 2007), which provided as follows: § 3-2-104.”
— Wyo. Stat. § 3-2-104(b) — 1 case
In the Matter of the Guardianship of LNP, a Minor Child: KC v. CC & EC, 2013 WY 20 (Wyo. 2013). “§ 3-2-104(b), based on the evidence presented at the hearing held on November 29.”
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.