Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-506 (2026)

Declaratory Judgments On Validity Or Application Of Rules

✓ 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 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

Part 5. Judicial Notice and Declaratory Rulings

Declaratory Judgments On Validity Or Application Of Rules

2-4-506. Declaratory judgments on validity or application of rules. (1) A rule may be declared invalid or inapplicable in an action for declaratory judgment if it is found that the rule or its threatened application interferes with or impairs or threatens to interfere with or impair the legal rights or privileges of the plaintiff.

(2) A rule may also be declared invalid in the action on the grounds that the rule was adopted with an arbitrary or capricious disregard for the purpose of the authorizing statute as evidenced by documented legislative intent.

(3) A declaratory judgment may be rendered whether or not the plaintiff has requested the agency to pass upon the validity or applicability of the rule in question.

(4) The action may be brought in the district court for the county in which the plaintiff resides or has a principal place of business or in which the agency maintains its principal office. The agency must be made a party to the action.

History: En. Sec. 19, Ch. 2, Ex. L. 1971; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 560, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 82-4219; amd. Sec. 14, Ch. 243, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 589, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 42, Ch. 61, L. 2007.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: Lohmeier v. State, Montana Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2008 MT 307 (Mont. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lohmeier v. State, Montana Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2008 MT 307 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 32× “12.101(39) (2005). *25 Defendants DNRC and US appeal.”

Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. Montana Bd. of Env't Review, 2008 MT 425 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 11× “” This determination satisfied the requirements of § 2-4-506, MCA. Given the multiplicity of Acts under which Pennaco sought review (see ¶ 16), the standard of review assembled by the District Court from these different sources was not erroneous under the circumstances with…”

Montana Trout Unlimited v. Montana Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2006 MT 72 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 4× “Trout Unlimited could not seek to challenge DNRC's interpretation under § 2-4-506, MCA. And, as the District Court noted, "waiting for the applications to be issued before challenging them administratively or in district court would be ineffective in preventing immediate harm to…”

Roeber v. State, Dep't of Institutions, 795 P.2d 424 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 16× “Pursuant to § 2-4-506, MCA, plaintiffs may bring a declaratory action to challenge the validity of a rule.”

Missoula City-Cnty. Air Pollution Control Bd. v. Bd. of Env't Review, 937 P.2d 463 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 4× “In addition to citing Title 2, Chapter 4, part 7, MCA, the amended petition also asserts that the amendments to the administrative rules violate § 2-4-506, MCA. That statute provides: (1) A rule may be declared invalid or inapplicable in an action for declaratory judgment if it…”

Brisendine v. State, Dept. of Com., 833 P.2d 1019 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 3× “" It is true that § 2-4-506(1) and (3), MCA, grants authority to the Board of Dentistry to issue declaratory judgments.”

Brisendine v. State, 253 Mont. 361 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 3× “” It is true that § 2-4-506(1) and (3), MCA, grants authority to the Board of Dentistry to issue declaratory judgments.”

Serena Vista, L.L.C. v. State of Montana Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2008 MT 65 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 2× “¶11 Premised upon its determination that DNRC’s June 2006 letter actually constituted an unlawfully created rule, Serena Vista invokes § 2-4-506(4), MCA (of MAPA), and the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, § 27-8-201 through -331, MCA, as authority for its declaratory judgment…”

Core-Mark Int'l Inc. v. Montana Bd. of Livestock, 2014 MT 197 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 2× “See § 2-4-506, MCA. The statutory structure thus distinguishes between contested cases and rulemaking, and judicial review of these matters.”

Samson v. State, 948 P.2d 232 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 11× “They additionally attempt to challenge their property tax assessments pursuant to § 15-2-307, MCA (repealed in 1993), and the validity of certain administrative rules pursuant to § 2-4-506, MCA. The Department responded to the Taxpayers’ amended complaint on August 9, 1996, by…”

State v. 13th Jud. Dist. (Mont. 2023). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs did not directly challenge the 2022 Rule, either by amending their complaint to include a request for declaratory judgment pursuant to § 2-4-506, MCA, or by petitioning DPHHS for repeal pursuant to § 2-4-315, MCA.”

Gardipee v. State of Montana (D. Mont. 2021). “§ 2-4-506, for such rules.3 2 Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint refers only to Montana’s 2021 Deer, Elk, and Antelope regulations, but they allege that “the same restrictions and exclusions apply to all big game archery hunting in Montana.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-506(1) — 4 cases

Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. Montana Bd. of Env't Review, 2008 MT 425 (Mont. 2008). “” This determination satisfied the requirements of § 2-4-506, MCA. Given the multiplicity of Acts under which Pennaco sought review (see ¶ 16), the standard of review assembled by the District Court from these different sources was not erroneous under the circumstances with…”

Brisendine v. State, Dept. of Com., 833 P.2d 1019 (Mont. 1992). “" It is true that § 2-4-506(1) and (3), MCA, grants authority to the Board of Dentistry to issue declaratory judgments.”

Brisendine v. State, 253 Mont. 361 (Mont. 1991). “” It is true that § 2-4-506(1) and (3), MCA, grants authority to the Board of Dentistry to issue declaratory judgments.”

Samson v. State, 948 P.2d 232 (Mont. 1997). “They additionally attempt to challenge their property tax assessments pursuant to § 15-2-307, MCA (repealed in 1993), and the validity of certain administrative rules pursuant to § 2-4-506, MCA. The Department responded to the Taxpayers’ amended complaint on August 9, 1996, by…”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-506(2) — 2 cases

Lohmeier v. State, Montana Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2008 MT 307 (Mont. 2008). “12.101(39) (2005). *25 Defendants DNRC and US appeal.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-506(4) — 3 cases

Brisendine v. State, Dept. of Com., 833 P.2d 1019 (Mont. 1992). “" It is true that § 2-4-506(1) and (3), MCA, grants authority to the Board of Dentistry to issue declaratory judgments.”

Brisendine v. State, 253 Mont. 361 (Mont. 1991). “” It is true that § 2-4-506(1) and (3), MCA, grants authority to the Board of Dentistry to issue declaratory judgments.”

Serena Vista, L.L.C. v. State of Montana Dep't of Nat. Resources & Conservation, 2008 MT 65 (Mont. 2008). “¶11 Premised upon its determination that DNRC’s June 2006 letter actually constituted an unlawfully created rule, Serena Vista invokes § 2-4-506(4), MCA (of MAPA), and the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, § 27-8-201 through -331, MCA, as authority for its declaratory judgment…”

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.