25-2-115. Multiple proper counties. If this part designates more than one county as a proper place of trial for any action, an action brought in any such county is brought in a proper county and no motion may be granted to change the place of trial upon the ground that the action is not brought in a proper county under 25-2-201(1). If an action is brought in a county not designated as a proper place of trial, a defendant may move for a change of place of trial to any of the designated counties.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-115 (2026)
Multiple Proper Counties
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 25. CIVIL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 2. VENUE
Part 1. Proper Place of Trial -- Venue
Multiple Proper Counties
History: En. Sec. 5, Ch. 432, L. 1985.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases, 1987–2019 · leading case: Allen v. Atl. Richfield Co., 2005 MT 281 (Mont. 2005).
Allen v. Atl. Richfield Co., 2005 MT 281 (Mont. 2005). “See § 25-2-115, MCA. No motion may be granted to change the place of a trial brought in a proper county.”
Circle S Seeds of Montana, Inc. v. Montana Merchandising, Inc., 2006 MT 311 (Mont. 2006). “Under § 25-2-124, MCA, venue is proper in an action for the recovery of a statutory penalty in the county where the cause or some part thereof arose.”
Deichl v. Savage, 2009 MT 293 (Mont. 2009). “" Section 25-2-115, MCA. ¶ 9 Savage and Torgerson argue that Deichl's claim for negligent misrepresentation lies in Yellowstone County because it is "(1) the Defendants' county of residence, (2) the place for performance of the underlying contract between the parties, and (3)…”
Wentz v. Montana Power Co., 928 P.2d 237 (Mont. 1996). “See also § 25-2-115, MCA. Notwithstanding, on appeal, Dr.”
Lockhead v. Weinstein, 2001 MT 132 (Mont. 2001). “When more than one county may be a proper county for trial, an action brought in any such county is brought in a proper county and no motion may be granted to change the place of trial upon the ground that the action is not brought in the proper county.”
DML, INC. v. Fulbright, 2005 MT 204 (Mont. 2005). “Section 25-2-115, MCA. ¶ 12 Section 25-2-116, MCA, provides: In an action involving two or more claims for which this part designates more than one as a proper place of trial, a party entitled to a change of place of trial on any claim is entitled to a change of place of trial…”
Haug v. Burlington N. R.R., 770 P.2d 517 (Mont. 1989). “Section 25-2-115, MCA, provides that where two or more counties are designated as proper counties, the defendant is not entitled to a change of venue if the plaintiff chose one of those counties.”
Sprinkle v. Burton, 935 P.2d 1094 (Mont. 1996). “It is also black-letter law that when a suit is properly commenced in more than one county and the plaintiff files in one of the permissible counties, the defendant may not change the venue of the action to a different county, even if the county preferred by the defendant is…”
Topco, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Highways, 912 P.2d 805 (Mont. 1996). “It is well established that when more than one county is designated as a proper place of trial for an action, an action brought in any such county is brought in a proper county and a motion for change of venue may not be granted.”
Hovland v. Saylor, 2015 MT 19 (Mont. 2015). “¶12 Under § 25-2-115, MCA, where there are multiple proper counties for a proceeding, if the party initiating the proceeding brings the action in a proper county “no motion may be granted to change the place of trial upon the ground that the action is not brought in a proper…”
Petersen v. Tucker, 742 P.2d 483 (Mont. 1987). “The plaintiffs are residents of the State of Montana and the county of their residence is a proper venue Section 25-2-126(1), MCA; Section 25-2-115, MCA. As such the appellants have no right to have the venue changed under Section 25-2-201, MCA.”
Bnsf Ry. Co. v. State, Dept. of Env. Qual., 2010 MT 46 (Mont. 2010). “With due respect, there is no requirement nor guarantee that this case will be assigned to Judge Sherlock, nor is this case at all identically postured to the case he previously decided. I therefore find the rationale underlying the "ends of justice" flawed, in any event.”
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.