Wyoming Statutes

Wyo. Stat. § 8-3-101 (2026)

Great seal of the state of Wyoming.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WY-LEGwyoleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

There shall be a great seal of the state of Wyoming, which shall
be of the following design, viz: A circle one and one-half
(1 1/2) inches in diameter, on the outer edge or rim of which
shall be engraved the words "Great Seal of the State of
Wyoming." The design shall conform substantially to the
following description: A pedestal, showing on the front thereof
an eagle resting upon a shield, the shield to have engraved
thereon a star and the figures, "44," being the number of
Wyoming in the order of admission to statehood. Standing upon
the pedestal shall be a draped figure of a woman, modeled after
the statue of the "Victory of the Louvre," from whose wrists
shall hang links of a broken chain, and holding in her right
hand a staff from the top of which shall float a banner with the
words "Equal Rights" thereon, all suggesting the political
position of woman in this state. On either side of the pedestal
and standing at the base thereof, shall be male figures
typifying the livestock and mining industries of Wyoming. Behind
the pedestal, and in the background, shall be two (2) pillars,
each supporting a lighted lamp, signifying the light of
knowledge. Around each pillar shall be a scroll with the
following words thereon: On the right of the central figure the
words "Livestock" and "Grain," and on the left the words "Mines"
and "Oil." At the base of the pedestal, and in front, shall
appear the figures "1869-1890," the former date signifying the
organization of the territory of Wyoming and the latter the date
of its admission to statehood.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1978–1981 · leading case: Worthington v. State, 598 P.2d 796 (Wyo. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Worthington v. State, 598 P.2d 796 (Wyo. 1979). · cites it 8× “Under this view, municipal immunity cannot be held to be a legislative rule by virtue of § 8-3-101, [*] W.S. 1977, ..." Oroz v. Board of County Commissioners of Carbon County, supra, 575 P.”

Hopkinson v. State, 632 P.2d 79 (Wyo. 1981). · cites it 2× “"Since the common law controls, unless the legislature or case law has altered it, W.S. 8-3-101 (1977), a court following the common law rule would be forced to hold that an accessory before the fact `may be tried where the accessorial act took place and only there.”

Oroz v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Carbon Cnty., 575 P.2d 1155 (Wyo. 1978). · cites it 2× “Under this view, municipal immunity cannot be held to be a legislative rule by virtue of § 8-3-101, W.S. 1977, as was held in Maffei v.”

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.