Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 25. CIVIL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 2. VENUE · Part 1. Proper Place of Trial -- Venue
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-124 (2026)

Recovery Of Statutory Penalty Or Forfeiture

✓ 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 25
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 1
  5. 25-2-124 Recovery of statutory penalty or forfeiture

TITLE 25. CIVIL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 2. VENUE

Part 1. Proper Place of Trial -- Venue

Recovery Of Statutory Penalty Or Forfeiture

25-2-124. Recovery of statutory penalty or forfeiture. The proper place of trial for the recovery of a penalty or forfeiture imposed by statute is the county where the cause or some part thereof arose, except that when it is imposed for an offense committed on a lake, river, or other stream of water situated in two or more counties, the action may be brought in any county bordering on such lake, river, or stream and opposite to the place where the offense was committed.

History: En. Sec. 19, p. 46, Bannack Stat.; re-en. Sec. 19, p. 137, L. 1867; re-en. Sec. 24, p. 31, Cod. Stat. 1871; re-en. Sec. 57, p. 51, L. 1877; re-en. Sec. 57, 1st Div. Rev. Stat. 1879; re-en. Sec. 57, 1st Div. Comp. Stat. 1887; re-en. Sec. 611, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6502, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9094, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 393; re-en. Sec. 9094, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 93-2902(part); amd. Sec. 12, Ch. 432, L. 1985; sec. 25-2-104, MCA 1983; redes. 25-2-124 by Code Commissioner, 1985.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2006–2018 · leading case: Circle S Seeds of Montana, Inc. v. Montana Merchandising, Inc., 2006 MT 311 (Mont. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Circle S Seeds of Montana, Inc. v. Montana Merchandising, Inc., 2006 MT 311 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 50× “MMI argued that Cascade County would be the only proper venue because MMI resides there and any alleged tort occurred there.”
Rosendale v. Victory Ins. Co., 432 P.3d 114 (Mont. 2018). · cites it 30× “We address the following issue: Whether the District Court erred in granting Victory's Motion to Change Venue on the basis that the venue provision in § 33-2-1118, MCA, controlled over the venue provision in § 25-2-124, MCA. ¶2 We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶3…”
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.