Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 1. GENERAL LAWS AND DEFINITIONS · CHAPTER 4. INTERPRETATION OF INSTRUMENTS · Part 1. General Provisions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 1-4-101 (2026)

Role Of The Judge -- Preference To Construction Giving Each Provision Meaning

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 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 4
  4. Part 1
  5. 1-4-101 Role of the judge -- preference to construction giving each provision meaning

TITLE 1. GENERAL LAWS AND DEFINITIONS

CHAPTER 4. INTERPRETATION OF INSTRUMENTS

Part 1. General Provisions

Role Of The Judge -- Preference To Construction Giving Each Provision Meaning

1-4-101. Role of the judge -- preference to construction giving each provision meaning. In the construction of an instrument, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted. Where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.

History: En. Sec. 612, p. 198, L. 1877; re-en. Sec. 612, 1st Div. Rev. Stat. 1879; re-en. Sec. 630, 1st Div. Comp. Stat. 1887; re-en. Sec. 3134, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 7875, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 10519, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 1858; re-en. Sec. 10519, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 93-401-15(part).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Mary J. Baker Revocable Trust v. Cenex Harvest States, Cooperatives, Inc., 2007 MT 159, 164 P.3d 851.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mary J. Baker Revocable Trust v. Cenex Harvest States, Cooperatives, Inc., 2007 MT 159, 164 P.3d 851. · cites it 6× “See § 1-4-101, MCA (“In the construction of an instrument, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted.”
Krajacich v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP, 2012 MT 82, 276 P.3d 922. · cites it 6× “Section 1-4-101, MCA. ¶ 17 Appellants contend that the District Court "was required to interpret the meaning of `practice of medicine' in its technical sense, because that phrase has been specifically defined in § 37-3-102(8), MCA.”
State Ex Rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2009 MT 261, 217 P.3d 475. · cites it 6× “" Section 1-4-101, MCA. Reading the parenthetical as the PMs urge, such that any dispute concerning the application of an NPM Adjustment must be arbitrated, would effectively nullify the limiting words "calculations performed by, or any determinations made by" the Independent…”
Creveling v. Ingold, 2006 MT 57, 132 P.3d 531. · cites it 6× “"In the construction of an instrument, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted.”
Kopischke v. First Cont'l Corp., 610 P.2d 668 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 6× “Section 1-4-101, MCA; Danielson v. Danielson (1977), 172 Mont.”
Richards v. JTL Grp., Inc., 2009 MT 173, 212 P.3d 264. · cites it 4× “See § 1-4-101, MCA; Baker Revoc. Trust , ¶ 73.”
Wagner v. Woodward, 2012 MT 19, 270 P.3d 21. · cites it 6× “Section 1-4-101, MCA. The District Court did not err in so ruling.”
Langager v. Crazy Creek Prods., Inc., 1998 MT 44, 954 P.2d 1169. · cites it 6× “Unfortunately, in agreeing with this tack, the majority has effectively and improperly re-written the employment contract. In the construction of an instrument, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to…”
Wurl v. Polson Sch. Dist. No. 23, 2006 MT 8, 127 P.3d 436. · cites it 3× “” Section 1-4-101, MCA. The employment contract clearly states that Wurl assented to “other provisions” of the MA.”
Matter of Est. of Dern Fam. Trust, 928 P.2d 123 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 7× “" Section 1-4-101, MCA. Moreover, the provisions of the Trust control as to the requirements for modification.”
Weter v. Archambault, 2002 MT 336, 61 P.3d 771. · cites it 6× “" Section 1-4-101, MCA. "The whole of a contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other.”
Milltown Addition Homeowner's Ass'n v. Geery, 2000 MT 341, 15 P.3d 458. · cites it 10× “¶As stated above, each part of the Declaration contains a separate enforcement provision.”
Show all 63 citing cases →
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.