Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION · CHAPTER 9. LIABILITY EXPOSURE AND INSURANCE COVERAGE · Part 1. Liability Exposure
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-103 (2026)

Actions Under Invalid Law Or Rule -- Same As If Valid -- When

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 2
  3. CHAPTER 9
  4. Part 1
  5. 2-9-103 Actions under invalid law or rule -- same as if valid -- when

TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 9. LIABILITY EXPOSURE AND INSURANCE COVERAGE

Part 1. Liability Exposure

Actions Under Invalid Law Or Rule -- Same As If Valid -- When

2-9-103. Actions under invalid law or rule -- same as if valid -- when. (1) If an officer, agent, or employee of a governmental entity acts in good faith, without malice or corruption, and under the authority of law and that law is subsequently declared invalid as in conflict with the constitution of Montana or the constitution of the United States, that officer, agent, or employee, any other officer, agent, or employee of the represented governmental entity, or the governmental entity is not civilly liable in any action in which the individuals or governmental entity would not have been liable if the law had been valid.

(2) If an officer, agent, or employee of a governmental entity acts in good faith, without malice or corruption, and under the authority of a duly promulgated rule or ordinance and that rule or ordinance is subsequently declared invalid, that officer, agent, or employee, any other officer, agent, or employee of the represented governmental entity, or the governmental entity is not civilly liable in any action in which liability would not attach if the rule or ordinance had been valid.

History: En. 82-4333 by Sec. 7, Ch. 189, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 82-4333; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 184, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 55, Ch. 61, L. 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1980–2020 · leading case: Dorwart v. Caraway, 2002 MT 240 (Mont. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dorwart v. Caraway, 2002 MT 240 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 84× “However, the Court also held that the Defendants were entitled to immunity pursuant to § 2-9-103(1), MCA, for having reasonably relied on the previous law of Montana.”
Ross v. City of Great Falls, 1998 MT 276 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 35× “The City argued to the contrary, but also contended that, even if § 7-32-4112(1), MCA, were unconstitutional, the City was immune from liability pursuant to § 2-9-103, MCA. ¶30 The District Court declined to address the constitutionality of § 7-32-4112(1), MCA (1989), based on…”
Owen v. City of Indep., 445 U.S. 622 (1980). · cites it 2× “03 (5), (6) (1978); Mont. Code Ann. §§ 2-9-103 , 2-9-111, 2-9-112 (1979); Neb.”
Peschel v. City of Missoula, 664 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (D. Mont. 2009). · cites it 2× “Mont.Code Ann. § 2-9-103. The City has already conceded that the individual Defendants acted within the course and scope of their employment with respect to the subject matter of this lawsuit.”
Jaksha v. Butte-Silver Bow Cnty., 2009 MT 263 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 6× “Under §2-9-103, MCA, the County cannot be held civilly liable for relying in good faith, without malice or corruption, upon a law or rule which is subsequently declared invalid on constitutional grounds.”
Robinson v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 430 P.3d 69 (Mont. 2018). · cites it 3× “" Section 2-9-103(1), MCA. ¶ 35 However, we need not address the existence of alternate remedies or good faith immunity, as we have already determined that no constitutional violation occurred here.”
Moodys Mkt. v. State Fund, 2020 MT 217 (Mont. 2020). · cites it 2× “” The District Court also denied the Policyholders’ motion for leave to amend their Complaint after concluding that the proposed amendment did not cure the Policyholders’ lack of standing and that the individual State Fund board members were 4 immune from liability pursuant to §…”
LeFer v. Murry, 978 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (2013). “Mont.Code Ann. § 2-9-103. There is no proof in the record to give rise to a question about the Commissioner’s immunity.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-103(1) — 3 cases
Dorwart v. Caraway, 2002 MT 240 (Mont. 2002). “However, the Court also held that the Defendants were entitled to immunity pursuant to § 2-9-103(1), MCA, for having reasonably relied on the previous law of Montana.”
Ross v. City of Great Falls, 1998 MT 276 (Mont. 1998). “The City argued to the contrary, but also contended that, even if § 7-32-4112(1), MCA, were unconstitutional, the City was immune from liability pursuant to § 2-9-103, MCA. ¶30 The District Court declined to address the constitutionality of § 7-32-4112(1), MCA (1989), based on…”
Robinson v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 430 P.3d 69 (Mont. 2018). “" Section 2-9-103(1), MCA. ¶ 35 However, we need not address the existence of alternate remedies or good faith immunity, as we have already determined that no constitutional violation occurred here.”
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.