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. § 2-9-111 (2026)

Immunity From Suit For Legislative Acts And Omissions

✓ 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. 2-9-111 Immunity from suit for legislative acts and omissions

TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 9. LIABILITY EXPOSURE AND INSURANCE COVERAGE

Part 1. Liability Exposure

Immunity From Suit For Legislative Acts And Omissions

2-9-111. Immunity from suit for legislative acts and omissions. (1) As used in this section:

(a) the term "governmental entity" means only the state, counties, municipalities, school districts, and any other local government entity or local political subdivision vested with legislative power by statute;

(b) the term "legislative body" means only the legislature vested with legislative power by Article V of The Constitution of the State of Montana and that branch or portion of any other local governmental entity or local political subdivision empowered by law to consider and enact statutes, charters, ordinances, orders, rules, policies, resolutions, or resolves;

(c) (i) the term "legislative act" means:

(A) actions by a legislative body that result in creation of law or declaration of public policy;

(B) other actions of the legislature authorized by Article V of The Constitution of the State of Montana; or

(C) actions by a school board that result in adoption of school board policies pursuant to 20-3-323(1);

(ii) the term legislative act does not include administrative actions undertaken in the execution of a law or public policy.

(2) A governmental entity is immune from suit for a legislative act or omission by its legislative body, or any member or staff of the legislative body, engaged in legislative acts.

(3) Any member or staff of a legislative body is immune from suit for damages arising from the lawful discharge of an official duty associated with legislative acts of the legislative body.

(4) The acquisition of insurance coverage, including self-insurance or group self-insurance, by a governmental entity does not waive the immunity provided by this section.

(5) The immunity provided for in this section does not extend to:

(a) any tort committed by the use of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or other means of transportation; or

(b) any act or omission that results in or contributes to personal injury or property damage caused by contamination or other alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties of surface water or ground water, for which a cause of action exists in statutory or common law or at equity. This subsection (b) does not create a separate or new cause of action.

History: En. 82-4328 by Sec. 2, Ch. 189, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 82-4328; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 818, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 821, L. 1991.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Eccleston v. Montana Third Jud. Dist. Court, 783 P.2d 363 (Mont. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Eccleston v. Montana Third Jud. Dist. Court, 783 P.2d 363 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 154× “Both dismissals were based on the immunity provisions of § 2-9-111, MCA. At plaintiff's request, we identified the following issues for determination upon supervisory control: 1) Whether this is a proper case for this Court's consideration upon a writ of supervisory control? 2)…”
Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 107× “¶30 The hearing examiner then considered several affirmative defenses asserted by Shoemaker and the City: privilege under § 27-1-804, MCA; legislative immunity under § 2-9-111, MCA; and the constitutional right to free speech.”
Peterson v. Great Falls Sch. Dist. No. 1 & A, 773 P.2d 316 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 110× “The District Court found Peterson's cause of action against the school district is barred by § 2-9-111, MCA, and recent decisions *317 interpreting that statute.”
Kiely Constr., L.L.C. v. City of Red Lodge Ex Rel. Red Lodge City Council, 2002 MT 241 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 46× “¶ 13 In May of 2000, Red Lodge filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging the acts by Red Lodge and the City Council were legislative acts, thus qualifying Red Lodge and the City Council for statutory immunity under § 2-9-111, MCA. Red Lodge further asserted that it had not…”
Crowell v. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 805 P.2d 522 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 82× “Are the School District and the physical education teacher immune from suit under § 2-9-111, MCA? 2. If the School District and the physical education teacher are immune from suit, did the School District's purchase of liability insurance waive its immunity? On March 1, 1984, Ms.”
Massee v. Thompson, 2004 MT 121 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 37× “and any local governmental entity given legislative powers by statute, including school boards.”
Dagel v. City of Great Falls, 819 P.2d 186 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 48× “Did the District Court properly hold that the City of Great Falls is immune from plaintiff's state law claims under § 2-9-111, MCA? 3. Did the District Court properly conclude that plaintiff was covered by a written collective bargaining agreement at the time of her discharge,…”
Koch Ex Rel. Koch v. Billings Sch. Dist. No. 2, 833 P.2d 181 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 50× “2 (School District). On April 12, 1989, the District Court granted partial summary judgment to the Board and Brautigan pursuant to § 2-9-305, MCA.”
Bieber v. Broadwater Cnty., 759 P.2d 145 (Mont. 1988). · cites it 30× “When respondents filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they were immune from suit under Section 2-9-111, MCA, the court dismissed the action on those grounds.”
Montana Vending, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 2003 MT 282 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 19× “¶2 The two certified questions presented by the United States District Court are: ¶3 (1) Are the Great Falls Public School District’s actions of entering into exclusive agreements for the sale of soft drink products in its facilities legislative actions for which a school…”
Koch v. Yellowstone Cnty., 795 P.2d 454 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 61× “Summary judgment was granted on the grounds that the defendants are immune from suit pursuant to § 2-9-111, MCA. We reverse and remand. Appellants Koch, Logan, and Pronovost, plaintiffs below, raise the following issues on appeal: (1) Did the District Court err in determining…”
Barrett v. State, 2024 MT 86 (Mont. 2024). · cites it 13× “Finke, ¶ 34 (citing § 2-9-111, MCA). As noted in Forward Mont.”
Show all 66 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-111(1)(a) — 2 cases
Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (Mont. 2008). “¶30 The hearing examiner then considered several affirmative defenses asserted by Shoemaker and the City: privilege under § 27-1-804, MCA; legislative immunity under § 2-9-111, MCA; and the constitutional right to free speech.”
Harris v. Bailey, 798 P.2d 96 (Mont. 1990).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-111(1)(b) — 3 cases
Massee v. Thompson, 2004 MT 121 (Mont. 2004). “and any local governmental entity given legislative powers by statute, including school boards.”
Kent v. City of Columbia Falls, 2015 MT 139 (Mont. 2015).
Harris v. Bailey, 798 P.2d 96 (Mont. 1990).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-111(1)(c) — 2 cases
Dagel v. City of Great Falls, 819 P.2d 186 (Mont. 1991). “Did the District Court properly hold that the City of Great Falls is immune from plaintiff's state law claims under § 2-9-111, MCA? 3. Did the District Court properly conclude that plaintiff was covered by a written collective bargaining agreement at the time of her discharge,…”
Koch Ex Rel. Koch v. Billings Sch. Dist. No. 2, 833 P.2d 181 (Mont. 1992). “2 (School District). On April 12, 1989, the District Court granted partial summary judgment to the Board and Brautigan pursuant to § 2-9-305, MCA.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-111(1)(c)(i)(A) — 3 cases
Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (Mont. 2008). “¶30 The hearing examiner then considered several affirmative defenses asserted by Shoemaker and the City: privilege under § 27-1-804, MCA; legislative immunity under § 2-9-111, MCA; and the constitutional right to free speech.”
Kiely Constr., L.L.C. v. City of Red Lodge Ex Rel. Red Lodge City Council, 2002 MT 241 (Mont. 2002). “¶ 13 In May of 2000, Red Lodge filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging the acts by Red Lodge and the City Council were legislative acts, thus qualifying Red Lodge and the City Council for statutory immunity under § 2-9-111, MCA. Red Lodge further asserted that it had not…”
Dagel v. City of Great Falls, 819 P.2d 186 (Mont. 1991). “Did the District Court properly hold that the City of Great Falls is immune from plaintiff's state law claims under § 2-9-111, MCA? 3. Did the District Court properly conclude that plaintiff was covered by a written collective bargaining agreement at the time of her discharge,…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-111(1)(c)(ii) — 3 cases
Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (Mont. 2008). “¶30 The hearing examiner then considered several affirmative defenses asserted by Shoemaker and the City: privilege under § 27-1-804, MCA; legislative immunity under § 2-9-111, MCA; and the constitutional right to free speech.”
Massee v. Thompson, 2004 MT 121 (Mont. 2004). “and any local governmental entity given legislative powers by statute, including school boards.”
Knight v. City of Missoula, 827 P.2d 1270 (Mont. 1992).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-111(2) — 17 cases
Kiely Constr., L.L.C. v. City of Red Lodge Ex Rel. Red Lodge City Council, 2002 MT 241 (Mont. 2002). “¶ 13 In May of 2000, Red Lodge filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging the acts by Red Lodge and the City Council were legislative acts, thus qualifying Red Lodge and the City Council for statutory immunity under § 2-9-111, MCA. Red Lodge further asserted that it had not…”
State Ex Rel. Eccleston v. Montana Third Jud. Dist. Court, 783 P.2d 363 (Mont. 1989). “Both dismissals were based on the immunity provisions of § 2-9-111, MCA. At plaintiff's request, we identified the following issues for determination upon supervisory control: 1) Whether this is a proper case for this Court's consideration upon a writ of supervisory control? 2)…”
Massee v. Thompson, 2004 MT 121 (Mont. 2004). “and any local governmental entity given legislative powers by statute, including school boards.”
Montana Vending, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 2003 MT 282 (Mont. 2003). “¶2 The two certified questions presented by the United States District Court are: ¶3 (1) Are the Great Falls Public School District’s actions of entering into exclusive agreements for the sale of soft drink products in its facilities legislative actions for which a school…”
Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (Mont. 2008). “¶30 The hearing examiner then considered several affirmative defenses asserted by Shoemaker and the City: privilege under § 27-1-804, MCA; legislative immunity under § 2-9-111, MCA; and the constitutional right to free speech.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-111(3) — 10 cases
Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (Mont. 2008). “¶30 The hearing examiner then considered several affirmative defenses asserted by Shoemaker and the City: privilege under § 27-1-804, MCA; legislative immunity under § 2-9-111, MCA; and the constitutional right to free speech.”
State Ex Rel. Eccleston v. Montana Third Jud. Dist. Court, 783 P.2d 363 (Mont. 1989). “Both dismissals were based on the immunity provisions of § 2-9-111, MCA. At plaintiff's request, we identified the following issues for determination upon supervisory control: 1) Whether this is a proper case for this Court's consideration upon a writ of supervisory control? 2)…”
Peterson v. Great Falls Sch. Dist. No. 1 & A, 773 P.2d 316 (Mont. 1989). “The District Court found Peterson's cause of action against the school district is barred by § 2-9-111, MCA, and recent decisions *317 interpreting that statute.”
Bieber v. Broadwater Cnty., 759 P.2d 145 (Mont. 1988). “When respondents filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they were immune from suit under Section 2-9-111, MCA, the court dismissed the action on those grounds.”
Crowell v. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 805 P.2d 522 (Mont. 1991). “Are the School District and the physical education teacher immune from suit under § 2-9-111, MCA? 2. If the School District and the physical education teacher are immune from suit, did the School District's purchase of liability insurance waive its immunity? On March 1, 1984, Ms.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-111(4) — 6 cases
Massee v. Thompson, 2004 MT 121 (Mont. 2004). “and any local governmental entity given legislative powers by statute, including school boards.”
Koch Ex Rel. Koch v. Billings Sch. Dist. No. 2, 833 P.2d 181 (Mont. 1992). “2 (School District). On April 12, 1989, the District Court granted partial summary judgment to the Board and Brautigan pursuant to § 2-9-305, MCA.”
Peterson v. Great Falls Sch. Dist. No. 1 & A, 773 P.2d 316 (Mont. 1989). “The District Court found Peterson's cause of action against the school district is barred by § 2-9-111, MCA, and recent decisions *317 interpreting that statute.”
Dagel v. City of Great Falls, 819 P.2d 186 (Mont. 1991). “Did the District Court properly hold that the City of Great Falls is immune from plaintiff's state law claims under § 2-9-111, MCA? 3. Did the District Court properly conclude that plaintiff was covered by a written collective bargaining agreement at the time of her discharge,…”
S.M. v. R.B., 811 P.2d 1295 (Mont. 1991).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-111(5) — 2 cases
Forward Montana v. State, 2024 MT 75 (Mont. 2024).
Forward Montana v. State, 2024 MT 19 (Mont. 2024).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-111(5)(b) — 1 case
Massee v. Thompson, 2004 MT 121 (Mont. 2004). “and any local governmental entity given legislative powers by statute, including school boards.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-111(c)(4) — 1 case
Hyde v. Evergreen Volunteer Rural Fire Dept., 828 P.2d 1377 (Mont. 1992).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-111(c)(ii) — 1 case
Kiely Constr., L.L.C. v. City of Red Lodge Ex Rel. Red Lodge City Council, 2002 MT 241 (Mont. 2002). “¶ 13 In May of 2000, Red Lodge filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging the acts by Red Lodge and the City Council were legislative acts, thus qualifying Red Lodge and the City Council for statutory immunity under § 2-9-111, MCA. Red Lodge further asserted that it had not…”
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.