Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 2-3-114 (2026)

Enforcement -- Attorney Fees

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS

Part 1. Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard

Enforcement -- Attorney Fees

2-3-114. Enforcement -- attorney fees. (1) The district courts of the state have jurisdiction to set aside an agency decision under this part upon petition of any person whose rights have been prejudiced. A petition pursuant to this section must be filed within 30 days of the date on which the person learns, or reasonably should have learned, of the agency's decision.

(2) A person alleging a deprivation of rights who prevails in an action brought in district court to enforce the person's rights under Article II, section 8, of the Montana constitution may be awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees.

History: En. 82-4229 by Sec. 4, Ch. 491, L. 1975; amd. Sec. 25, Ch. 285, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 82-4229; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 211, L. 2007; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 266, L. 2015.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Schoof v. Nesbit, 2014 MT 6 (Mont. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Schoof v. Nesbit, 2014 MT 6 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 45× “1655, 1656, 1657, 3 While we recognize that § 2-3-114, MCA, generally applies to right of participation claims and § 2-3- 213, MCA, generally applies to right to know claims, there is a “fundamental link between the right to know and participate.”

Good Schs. Missoula, Inc. v. Missoula Cnty. Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2008 MT 231 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 14× “Loyola also argued GSM’s claims were barred by the thirty-day statute of limitations for challenging a decision of a state agency under § 2-3-114, MCA. Additionally, Loyola argued that GSM lacked standing to file suit against Loyola.”

Bryan v. Yellowstone Cnty. Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 2, 2002 MT 264 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 5× “ISSUE THREE ¶47 If the District violated Bryan’s constitutional right to know and participate, to what remedy is Bryan entitled? ¶48 In light of the constitutional violations referenced above, Bryan requests that we void the School Board’s decision pursuant to § 2-3-114, MCA.”

Doty v. Montana Comm'r of Political Practices, 2007 MT 341 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 7× “” Alternatively, Doty cited § 2-3-114, MCA, which provides a district court with “jurisdiction to set aside an agency decision .”

Citizens for a Better Flathead v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 2016 MT 256 (Mont. 2016). · cites it 3× “Sections 2-3-114, -213, MCA. Montana law defines an agency as “any board, bureau, commission, department, authority, or officer of the state or local government authorized by law to make rules, determine contested cases, or enter into contracts.”

State v. Beaupre, 2004 MT 300 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 6× “Section 2-3-114, MCA, provides that "[t]he district courts of the state have jurisdiction to set aside an agency decision under this part upon petition made within 30 days of the date of the decision[.”

Allen v. Lakeside Neighborhood Plan. Comm., 2013 MT 237 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 5× “Section 2-3-114, MCA, provides that “the district courts of the state have jurisdiction to set aside an agency decision .”

Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Park Comm'n, 2014 MT 214 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 4× “Sections 2-3-114 and 2-3-213, MCA. Further, “[a] plaintiff who prevails in an action brought in district court to enforce the plaintiff’s rights under Article II, section 9, of the Montana constitution may be awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees.”

Kadillak v. Anaconda Co., 602 P.2d 147 (Mont. 1979). · cites it 2× “It must be noted, though, that section 2-3-114 requires that action must be taken in District Court within 30 days of the date of decision.”

Johnson v. City of Bozeman, 2024 MT 168 (Mont. 2024). · cites it 31× “¶2 We restate the question presented as follows: Whether the District Court erred by determining that Plaintiffs’ claims against the City were not time-barred under § 2-3-114(1), MCA. We reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶3 The City is an incorporated municipality with…”

Bd. of Trs. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 606 P.2d 1069 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 2× “Section 2-3-114 provides: “The district courts of the state have jurisdiction to set aside an agency decision under this part upon petition made within 30 days of the date of the decision of any person whose rights have been prejudiced.”

City of Deer Lodge v. Tim Fox, 2017 MT 129 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 2× “Based on the facts of the case “and its implications on future conduct,” we opted to void the Board’s decision pursuant to § 2-3-114, MCA, but did not require the Board to reopen the closed schools.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-3-114(1) — 1 case

Johnson v. City of Bozeman, 2024 MT 168 (Mont. 2024). “¶2 We restate the question presented as follows: Whether the District Court erred by determining that Plaintiffs’ claims against the City were not time-barred under § 2-3-114(1), MCA. We reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶3 The City is an incorporated municipality with…”

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.