Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 1. GENERAL LAWS AND DEFINITIONS · CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS · Part 1. Meaning of Law
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 1-1-109 (2026)

Common Law Of England -- When Rule Of Decision

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 1
  3. CHAPTER 1
  4. Part 1
  5. 1-1-109 Common law of England -- when rule of decision

TITLE 1. GENERAL LAWS AND DEFINITIONS

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Part 1. Meaning of Law

Common Law Of England -- When Rule Of Decision

1-1-109. Common law of England -- when rule of decision. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this state.

History: En. p. 356, Bannack Stat.; re-en. p. 388, Cod. Stat. 1871; re-en. Sec. 144, 5th Div. Rev. Stat. 1879; re-en. Sec. 201, 5th Div. Comp. Stat. 1887; amd. Sec. 5152, Pol. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 3552, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 5672, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Pol. C. Sec. 4468; re-en. Sec. 5672, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 12-103.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: Dorwart v. Caraway, 2002 MT 240 (Mont. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dorwart v. Caraway, 2002 MT 240 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 8× “Section 1-1-109, MCA, provides that: The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the *137 constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this state.”
Meech v. Hillhaven West, Inc., 776 P.2d 488 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 4× “For example, § 1-1-109, MCA, first enacted as part of the Bannack Statutes, states: The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state, is the rule of decision in all…”
Miller v. Fallon Cnty., 721 P.2d 342 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 6× “Whether the District Court committed reversible error by granting summary judgment to PreFab on the basis of a waiver given to PreFab by appellant.”
United States v. Jorge Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2013). “§ 1-1; Idaho Code § 73-116 ; Mont.Code Ann. § 1-1-109; Neb.Rev.Stat. § 49-101; S.”
Derenberger v. Lutey, 674 P.2d 485 (Mont. 1983). · cites it 2× “The court said: *489 "The conclusion, then, is that § 1-1-109 does not mandate reduction of damages on the basis of comparative negligence of the plaintiff if defendant's misconduct is willful and wanton.”
Childers v. United States, 841 F. Supp. 1001 (D. Mont. 1993). “§ 1-1-109. 60. The Childers ignored the warnings available to them in the Canyon Warming Hut and by the North Entrance gate.”
Leas v. Salmonsen (Mont. 2023). · cites it 2× “" Within that same title and chapter, a statute provides that Montana law should take precedence.”
Henderson v. Salmonsen (Mont. 2023). · cites it 2× “Under § 1-1-109, MCA, "[t]he common law of England .”
Grant v. Salmonsen (Mont. 2023). · cites it 2× “" Within that same title and chapter, a statute provides that Montana law should take precedence.”
B. Daffin v. Salmonsen (Mont. 2023). · cites it 2× “Under § 1-1-109, MCA, "[t]he common law of England .”
Miller v. Fallon Cnty. (Mont. 1986). · cites it 3× “- DOCTRINE - INTERSPOUSAL TORT THE OF IMMUNITY The doctrine of interspousal tort immunity derives from the common law.”
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.