2-3-201. Legislative intent -- liberal construction. The legislature finds and declares that public boards, commissions, councils, and other public agencies in this state exist to aid in the conduct of the peoples' business. It is the intent of this part that actions and deliberations of all public agencies shall be conducted openly. The people of the state do not wish to abdicate their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. Toward these ends, the provisions of the part shall be liberally construed.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 2-3-201 (2026)
Legislative Intent -- Liberal Construction
✓ 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 2. Open Meetings
Legislative Intent -- Liberal Construction
History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 159, L. 1963; R.C.M. 1947, 82-3401.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Schoof v. Nesbit, 2014 MT 6 (Mont. 2014).
Schoof v. Nesbit, 2014 MT 6 (Mont. 2014). “” Section 2-3-201, MCA. To that end, “actions and deliberations of all public agencies shall be conducted openly.”
Associated Press v. Crofts, 2004 MT 120 (Mont. 2004). “Section 2-3-201, MCA (2001). To that end, the provisions of the open meeting laws are to be liberally construed.”
Jones v. Montana Univ. Sys., 2007 MT 82 (Mont. 2007). “2d 604 (1994), § 2-3-101, MCA, and § 2-3-201, MCA, although Petitioners leave their relevancy to the reader to ascertain.”
SJL of Montana Assocs. Ltd. P'ship v. City of Billings, 867 P.2d 1084 (Mont. 1993). “The legislature's intent, clearly expressed in § 2-3-201, MCA, is that [a]ctions and deliberations of all public agencies shall be conducted openly.”
Common Cause v. Statutory Comm. to Nominate Candidates for Comm'r of Political Practices, 868 P.2d 604 (Mont. 1994). “Section 2-3-203(1), MCA, provides, in pertinent part: All meetings of public or governmental bodies, boards, bureaus, commissions, agencies of the state, or any political subdivision of the state or organizations or agencies supported in whole or in part by public funds or…”
Willems v. SEC. of State Lind, 2014 MT 82 (Mont. 2014). “It related back to the date of the original pleading because it “assert[ed] a claim or defense that arose out of the 9 conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out—or attempted to be set out—in the original pleading.” M.”
Raap v. Wolf Point Sch. Dist., 2018 MT 58 (Mont. 2018). “" Section 2-3-201, MCA. Courts must liberally construe Article II, Section 9, and § 2-3-201, MCA, to the end that all deliberations of public bodies and agencies remain open to the public except as otherwise clearly provided under recognized exceptions to the constitutional…”
Bd. of Trs. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 606 P.2d 1069 (Mont. 1980). “Montana also has a number of statutes which protect this right to an “open meeting”, sections 2-3-201, MCA, et seq. Section 2-3-201 provides: “The legislature finds and declares that public boards, commissions, councils, and other public agencies in this state exist to aid in…”
Boulder Monitor v. Jefferson High Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2014 MT 5 (Mont. 2014). “” Section 2-3-201, MCA. A “meeting” is “the convening of a quorum1 of the constituent membership of a public agency .”
Bryan v. Yellowstone Cnty. Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 2, 2002 MT 264 (Mont. 2002). “The Legislature has promulgated guidelines to protect the Article II, Section 9, guarantees in Montana’s open meeting statutes, codified at § 2-3-201, et seq., MCA. One of these open meeting statutes, § 2-3-203(1), MCA, provides: All meetings of public or governmental bodies,…”
Moe v. Butte-Silver Bow Cnty., 2016 MT 103 (Mont. 2016). “This provision is implemented by §§ 2-3-201 through -221, MCA. Section 2-3-203, MCA, provides, “The presiding officer of any meeting may close the meeting during the time the discussion relates to a matter of individual privacy and then if and only if the presiding officer…”
Goyen v. City of Troy, 915 P.2d 824 (Mont. 1996). “Consequently, Goyen had a right to be notified of that discussion, regardless of whether Denton's assertion of her own privacy interest was reason enough to close the meeting. While the council asserts they took no action in executive session other than to recommend to Denton…”
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.