Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702

Initiating Judicial Review Of Contested Cases

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 7. Judicial Review of Contested Cases

Initiating Judicial Review Of Contested Cases

2-4-702. Initiating judicial review of contested cases. (1) (a) Except as provided in 75-2-213 and 75-20-223, a person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final written decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review under this chapter. This section does not limit use of or the scope of judicial review available under other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de novo provided by statute.

(b) A party who proceeds before an agency under the terms of a particular statute may not be precluded from questioning the validity of that statute on judicial review, but the party may not raise any other question not raised before the agency unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that there was good cause for failure to raise the question before the agency.

(2) (a) Except as provided in 75-2-211, 75-2-213, and subsections (2)(c) and (2)(e) of this section, proceedings for review must be instituted by filing a petition in district court within 30 days after service of the final written decision of the agency or, if a rehearing is requested, within 30 days after the written decision is rendered. Except as otherwise provided by statute, subsection (2)(d), or subsection (2)(e), the petition must be filed in the district court for the county where the petitioner resides or has the petitioner's principal place of business or where the agency maintains its principal office. Copies of the petition must be promptly served upon the agency and all parties of record.

(b) The petition must include a concise statement of the facts upon which jurisdiction and venue are based, a statement of the manner in which the petitioner is aggrieved, and the ground or grounds specified in 2-4-704(2) upon which the petitioner contends to be entitled to relief. The petition must demand the relief to which the petitioner believes the petitioner is entitled, and the demand for relief may be in the alternative.

(c) If a petition for review is filed pursuant to 33-16-1012(2)(c), the workers' compensation court, rather than the district court, has jurisdiction and the provisions of this part apply to the workers' compensation court in the same manner as the provisions of this part apply to the district court.

(d) If a petition for review is filed challenging a licensing or permitting decision made pursuant to Title 75 or Title 82, the petition for review must be filed in the county where the facility is located or proposed to be located or where the action is proposed to occur.

(e) (i) A party who is aggrieved by a final decision on an application for a permit or change in appropriation right filed under Title 85, chapter 2, part 3, may petition the district court or the water court for judicial review of the decision. If a petition for judicial review is filed in the water court, the water court rather than the district court has jurisdiction and the provisions of this part apply to the water court in the same manner as they apply to the district court. The time for filing a petition is the same as provided in subsection (2)(a).

(ii) If more than one party is aggrieved by a final decision on an application for a permit or change in appropriation right filed under Title 85, chapter 2, part 3, the district court where the appropriation right is located has jurisdiction. If more than one aggrieved party files a petition but no aggrieved party files a petition in the district court where the appropriation right is located, the first judicial district, Lewis and Clark County, has jurisdiction.

(iii) If a petition for judicial review is filed in the district court, the petition for review must be filed in the district court in the county where the appropriation right is located.

(3) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the filing of the petition may not stay enforcement of the agency's decision. The agency may grant or the reviewing court may order a stay upon terms that it considers proper, following notice to the affected parties and an opportunity for hearing. A stay may be issued without notice only if the provisions of 27-19-315 through 27-19-317 are met.

(4) Within 30 days after the service of the petition or within further time allowed by the court, the agency shall transmit to the reviewing court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding under review. By stipulation of all parties to the review proceedings, the record may be shortened. A party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit the record may be required by the court to pay the additional costs. The court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record.

History: En. Sec. 16, Ch. 2, Ex. L. 1971; amd. Sec. 17, Ch. 285, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 82-4216(part); amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 520, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 290, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 361, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 347, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 445, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 126, L. 2017; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 535, L. 2021.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 154 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Hilands Golf Club v. Ashmore

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hilands Golf Club v. Ashmore (2002) mont · cites it 59× “¶ 11 On July 12, 1994, pursuant to § 2-4-702, MCA, Hilands filed a Petition for Judicial Review of the Commission's order.”

Rierson v. State (1980) mont · cites it 66× “What the majority opinion overlooks, as indeed did the parties, is that section 2-4-702, MCA, the procedural statute relied on by the majority, is not intended to limit the scope of judicial review in precisely this kind of case.”

Montana Trout Unlimited v. Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation (2006) mont · cites it 16× “Section 2-4-702, MCA. DNRC never would be prevented from processing applications that do not fall within an exception to the Basin Closure Law, and Trout Unlimited would be forced to participate in an agency proceeding that Basin Closure Law expressly prohibits.”

Hilands Golf Club v. Ashmore (1996) mont · cites it 24× “Pursuant to § 2-4-702, MCA, Hilands filed a Petition for Judicial Review of the Commission’s holding.”

Stenstrom v. State (1996) mont · cites it 40× “The CSED alleges that Stenstrom’s request for judicial review of the May 1, 1995 Order was properly dismissed because it failed to conform to the judicial review requirements of § 2-4-702, MCA. Stenstrom alleges that because he requested judicial review of an intermediate…”

Northern Plains Resource Council v. Board of Natural Resources & Conservation (1979) mont · cites it 18× “1947, now section 2-4-702 MCA, of the MAPA, and thereby entitled to individual service of a copy of the petition of review.”

Trustees, Carbon County School District No. 28 v. Spivey (1991) mont · cites it 30× “The Montana Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA), which contains § 2-4-702, MCA, was enacted in 1971. The thirty-day statute of limitations of § 2-4-702, MCA, is a general statute that applies to all contested case proceedings of any agency under MARA.”

In Re the Support Obligation of McGurran (2002) mont · cites it 51× “It asserts that Udelhoven's failure to 4 follow the requirements of § 2-4-702(2)(a), MCA, which includes filing in the proper venue, divested the District Court of jurisdiction.”

Citizens Awareness Network v. Montana Board of Environmental Review (2010) mont · cites it 7× “Pursuant to the Montana Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA), § 2-4-702, MCA, the 5 Conservation Groups sought judicial review of BER’s decision denying them leave to amend their affidavit.”

Havre Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre (2006) mont · cites it 4× “The Newspaper may mount such a direct challenge in another proceeding, pursuant to § 2-4-702, MCA. Disconnected from any factual basis, however, the Newspaper’s present attempt to collaterally challenge the rule fails for want of ripeness both for the reasons enumerated above…”

Flowers v. Board of Personnel Appeals (2020) mont · cites it 7× “¶9 Section 2-4-702(1)(a), MCA, embodies the maxim of exhaustion of remedies.”

Sourdough Protective Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners (1992) mont · cites it 16× “In the same manner, Sourdough asserts that its appeal was proper under § 2-4-702, MCA. Again, Sourdough misapplies this statute to the case at bar.”

Show all 154 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(1) — 12 cases

Doty v. Montana Commissioner of Political Practices (2007) mont

Gilpin v. State (1991) mont

Victory Ins. v. Downing (2023) mont

Allied Waste Servs. of N. Am., LLC v. Mont. Dep't of Pub. Serv. Regulation (2019) mont

North Star v. PSC (2022) mont

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(1)(a) — 17 cases

Montana Trout Unlimited v. Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation (2006) mont “Section 2-4-702, MCA. DNRC never would be prevented from processing applications that do not fall within an exception to the Basin Closure Law, and Trout Unlimited would be forced to participate in an agency proceeding that Basin Closure Law expressly prohibits.”

Flowers v. Board of Personnel Appeals (2020) mont “¶9 Section 2-4-702(1)(a), MCA, embodies the maxim of exhaustion of remedies.”

Great Falls v. Assoc. of Firefighters (2024) mont

Rierson v. State (1980) mont “What the majority opinion overlooks, as indeed did the parties, is that section 2-4-702, MCA, the procedural statute relied on by the majority, is not intended to limit the scope of judicial review in precisely this kind of case.”

In Re McGurran (1999) mont

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(1)(b) — 14 cases

Hilands Golf Club v. Ashmore (2002) mont “¶ 11 On July 12, 1994, pursuant to § 2-4-702, MCA, Hilands filed a Petition for Judicial Review of the Commission's order.”

Sorlie v. School District No. 2 (1983) mont

Williams v. Joe Lowther Insurance Agency, Inc. (2008) mont

Harris v. Bauer (1988) mont

Great Falls v. Assoc. of Firefighters (2024) mont

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(2) — 4 cases

Baker v. State (1985) mont

BNSF Ry. Co. v. STATE, DEPT. OF ENV. QUAL. (2010) mont

Stone v. Belgrade School District No. 44 (1985) mont

Stone v. Belgrade School District N (1984) mont

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(2)(a) — 35 cases

In Re the Support Obligation of McGurran (2002) mont “It asserts that Udelhoven's failure to 4 follow the requirements of § 2-4-702(2)(a), MCA, which includes filing in the proper venue, divested the District Court of jurisdiction.”

Trustees, Carbon County School District No. 28 v. Spivey (1991) mont “The Montana Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA), which contains § 2-4-702, MCA, was enacted in 1971. The thirty-day statute of limitations of § 2-4-702, MCA, is a general statute that applies to all contested case proceedings of any agency under MARA.”

Udelhoven v. State, Department of Public Health & Human Services (1999) mont

BNSF Railway Co. v. O'Dea (2009) ca9

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(2)(a)(i) — 1 case

Richards v. DNRC (2021) mont

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(2)(a)(iv) — 1 case

Citizens Awareness Network v. Montana Board of Environmental Review (2010) mont “Pursuant to the Montana Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA), § 2-4-702, MCA, the 5 Conservation Groups sought judicial review of BER’s decision denying them leave to amend their affidavit.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(2)(a)(v) — 1 case

Difolco v. MT State Hospital (2026) mont

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(2)(b) — 4 cases

PacifiCorp v. State, Department of Revenue (2009) mont

Richards v. DNRC (2021) mont

Brand v. Department of Revenue (1993) mont

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(2)(iv) — 2 cases

Citizens Awareness v. DEQ (2010) mont

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(3) — 2 cases

Shamrock Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp. (1999) mont

Brackman v. Board of Nursing (1991) mont

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(b) — 1 case

PacifiCorp v. State, Department of Revenue (2009) mont

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(l)(a) — 22 cases

Doty v. Montana Commissioner of Political Practices (2007) mont

Shoemaker v. Denke (2004) mont

Hilands Golf Club v. Ashmore (1996) mont “Pursuant to § 2-4-702, MCA, Hilands filed a Petition for Judicial Review of the Commission’s holding.”

Udelhoven v. State, Department of Public Health & Human Services (1999) mont

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-702(l)(b) — 8 cases

Hilands Golf Club v. Ashmore (2002) mont “¶ 11 On July 12, 1994, pursuant to § 2-4-702, MCA, Hilands filed a Petition for Judicial Review of the Commission's order.”

Williams v. Joe Lowther Insurance Agency, Inc. (2008) mont

Booth v. Argenbright (1987) mont

Lincoln County v. Sanders County (1993) mont

Marriage of Davis v. Davis (1996) mont

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.