In Town of Marbleton v. Town of Big Piney, 719 P.2d 1389 (Wyo. 1986) the Court began the discussion by noting that, in reaching its decision that Marbleton lacked the standing to challenge Big Piney's annexation, the district court explained: "The matter is controlled by statute. The statute sets out who may bring an action and impliedly says who cannot." Id. at 1390. The Court then declared that we agreed with the district court. However, in immediately explaining our agreement with the district court we stated: "Generally, 'municipalities can exercise only those powers which are expressly or impliedly conferred.'"Id. (quoting Coulter v. City of Rawlins, 662 P.2d 888, 895 (Wyo. 1983)). The Court then briefly discussed the powers of a municipality, noting that a municipality is not granted the right to challenge another municipality's annexation. The Court cited to authority from other jurisdictions regarding a town's standing to contest an annexation. Id. at 1391. The conclusion stated that the Court does not necessarily agree that municipal standing to contest annexations can only be express but that in that case Marbleton showed neither express nor implied standing. Id. at 1391. Additionally, the Court held that Marbleton did not show that its own municipal powers were sufficiently affected by Big Piney's annexation.