1-3-223. Idle acts. The law neither does nor requires idle acts.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 1-3-223 (2026)
Idle Acts
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 1. GENERAL LAWS AND DEFINITIONS
CHAPTER 3. MAXIMS OF JURISPRUDENCE
Part 2. Text of Maxims
Idle Acts
History: En. Sec. 4623, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6200, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 8761, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 3532; Field Civ. C. Sec. 1987; re-en. Sec. 8761, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 49-124.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Montana Trout Unlimited v. Montana Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2006 MT 72 (Mont. 2006).
Montana Trout Unlimited v. Montana Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2006 MT 72 (Mont. 2006). “MAPA affords an aggrieved party the opportunity to file an appeal to the district court once DNRC reaches a final agency decision.”
Formicove, Inc. v. Burlington N., Inc., 673 P.2d 469 (Mont. 1983). “Section 1-3-223, MCA. An interpretation that gives effect is always preferred to one that makes a statute void or treats a statute as mere surplusage.”
State v. Smith, 863 P.2d 1000 (Mont. 1993). “Section 1-3-223, MCA. Because the relevant mitigating and aggravating circumstances have already been documented in that report, a new presentence investigation would serve no logical purpose.”
State Ex Rel. Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. Bd. of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 648 P.2d 734 (Mont. 1982). “Section 1-3-223, MCA. Appellants contend that each of the Board's conclusions of law are not supported by authority or by reasoned opinion and therefore violate section 2-4-623(3), MCA, supra.”
Conway v. Miller, 2010 MT 103 (Mont. 2010). “Finally, Miller argues that removing her garage is an idle act prohibited by § 1-3-223, MCA, because the Conways' view would still be obstructed by her house even if her garage was removed.”
Stockman Bank of Montana v. Mon-Kota, Inc., 2008 MT 74 (Mont. 2008). “Thus, citing § 1-3-223, MCA, Appellees argue that Montana law does not require the “idle act” of filing two forms containing the same information with the Secretary of State for recording within the same centralized database.”
MacKin v. State, 621 P.2d 477 (Mont. 1980). “Section 1-3-223, MCA. For these reasons I do not believe the legislature intended to empower the trial courts to adjudicate the amount of noneconomic damages for which the State is not liable under the statute and include such items in a final judgment before the plaintiff can…”
In Re Marriage of Metcalf, 598 P.2d 1140 (Mont. 1979). “Section 1-3-223, MCA. Appellant’s primary objection on appeal is that the trial court erred because it did not consider, in arriving at the net worth of the parties, $12,000 worth of unsecured debts.”
Soup Creek LLC v. Gibson, 439 P.3d 369 (Mont. 2019). “" Section 1-3-223, MCA. Gunn's request for and the commissioners' grant of abandonment of that part of Soup Creek Road on his parcel in 1910 can only be "given effect" if the commissioners' 1895 decision not to make Soup Creek Road a county road did not abandon the road.”
Am. Linen Supply Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 617 P.2d 131 (Mont. 1980). “Section 1-3-223, MCA. An interpretation that gives effect is always preferred over an interpretation that makes the statute void or treats the statute as mere surplusage.”
Truck Ins. Exch. v. Waller, 828 P.2d 1384 (Mont. 1992). “Section 1-3-223, MCA. To compel the District Court, under the circumstances of this case, to dispose of the bad faith counterclaim in a separate, independent proceeding would be to compel inefficient and idle acts.”
State v. Ness, 2009 MT 300 (Mont. 2009). “Section 1-3-223, MCA (2005). Accordingly, VOCA was entitled to restitution pursuant to §46-18-243(2)(a)(v), MCA.”
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.