Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-126 (2026)

Against State And Political Subdivisions

✓ 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

Against State And Political Subdivisions

25-2-126. Against state and political subdivisions. (1) Except as provided in 25-2-127 and subsection (2) of this section, the proper place of trial for an action against the state is in the county in which the claim arose or in Lewis and Clark County. In an action against the state brought by a resident of the state, the county of the plaintiff's residence is also a proper place of trial.

(2) For an action that challenges the issuance, approval, renewal, or denial of a permit, license, authorization, or certificate by a state agency, the action must be brought in the county in which the permitted, licensed, authorized, or certificated activity would occur. If an activity would occur in more than one county, any county in which the activity would occur is a proper place for an action.

(3) The proper place of trial for an action against a political subdivision is in the county in which the claim arose or in any county where the political subdivision is located.

History: (1), (3)En. Sec. 21, Ch. 380, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 82-4321; amd. Sec. 15, Ch. 432, L. 1985; sec. 2-9-312, MCA 1983; redes. 25-2-126(1), (3) by Sec. 18(2), Ch. 432, L. 1985; (2)En. Sec. 58, p. 52, L. 1877; re-en. Sec. 58, 1st Div. Rev. Stat. 1879; re-en. Sec. 58, 1st Div. Comp. Stat. 1887; amd. Sec. 612, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6503, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9095, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 394; re-en. Sec. 9095, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 93-2903; amd. Sec. 14, Ch. 432, L. 1985; sec. 25-2-106, MCA 1983; redes. 25-2-126(2) by Code Commissioner, 1985; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 128, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 9, Ch. 535, L. 2021; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 357, L. 2025.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases, 1986–2010 · leading case: Wentz v. Montana Power Co., 928 P.2d 237 (Mont. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wentz v. Montana Power Co., 928 P.2d 237 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 82× “Section 25-2-126, MCA, provides in pertinent part: (2) The proper place of trial for an action against a county is that county unless such action is brought by a county, in which case any county not a party thereto is also a proper place of trial.”

Gabriel v. Sch. Dist. No. 4, Libby, 870 P.2d 1351 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 62× “While the contention is correct, it is not relevant here. The legislature specifically has provided for venue in actions against political subdivisions such as the School District.”

Minervino v. Univ. of Montana, 853 P.2d 1242 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 34× “Montana’s venue statute for actions against the state or a political subdivision is § 25-2-126, MCA, which provides in pertinent part: (1) The proper place of trial for an action against the state is in the county in which the claim arose or in Lewis and Clark County.”

Buhmann v. State, 2008 MT 465 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 18× “¶ 32 The District Court also noted that because their claims were brought against the state of Montana, the proper venue for the claims, pursuant to § 25-2-126, MCA, would be either the county of the plaintiffs' respective residences or Lewis and Clark County.”

Meyer v. Montana Power Co., 2005 MT 66 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 32× “¶17 We note that neither subsection of § 25-2-126, MCA, purports to prescribe the sole proper venue for an action in which the State or a political subdivision thereof is a defendant, to the exclusion of all other *288 venue designations under the statutes.”

LaTray v. City of Havre, 2000 MT 119 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 4× “Although the first trial of this case resulted in a jury verdict for the City, the then-presiding judge ordered a new trial because he concluded that the initial verdict had been tainted by the jury's exposure to media publicity during the trial.”

Topco, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Highways, 912 P.2d 805 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 5× “However, under § 25-2-126(1), MCA, there is an exception for actions in which the State is a defendant.”

Petersen v. Tucker, 742 P.2d 483 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 6× “The statute controlling venue in actions against the state, including the instant case is Section 25-2-126(1), MCA, which provides: “The proper place of trial for an action against the state is in the county in which the claim arose or in Lewis and Clark County.”

Allen v. Atl. Richfield Co., 2005 MT 281 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs relied on § 25-2-126(1), MCA, which allows Montana residents to bring actions against the State in their county of residence.”

McMillan v. Puckett, 678 So. 2d 652 (Miss. 1996). · cites it 2× “If the claim does not accrue until the death occurs, it cannot "arise" under § 25-2-126, MCA, until the death occurs. Simply put, no wrongful death claim exists until the death occurs; therefore, the claim cannot "arise" for venue purposes until that time.”

Bnsf Ry. Co. v. State, Dept. of Env. Qual., 2010 MT 46 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 10× “¶ 9 The District Court presented three grounds for transferring venue to Lewis and Clark County: (1) that Flathead County was not the proper county under § 25-2-126(1), MCA; (2) that Flathead County was not the proper county under § 2-4-702(2), MCA; and (3) that changing venue…”

Kendall v. State, 752 P.2d 1091 (Mont. 1988). · cites it 15× “He brought this suit in that county under Section 25-2-126(1), MCA: “The proper place of trial for an action against the state is in the county in which the claim arose or in Lewis and Clark County.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-126(1) — 8 cases

Buhmann v. State, 2008 MT 465 (Mont. 2008). “¶ 32 The District Court also noted that because their claims were brought against the state of Montana, the proper venue for the claims, pursuant to § 25-2-126, MCA, would be either the county of the plaintiffs' respective residences or Lewis and Clark County.”

Minervino v. Univ. of Montana, 853 P.2d 1242 (Mont. 1993). “Montana’s venue statute for actions against the state or a political subdivision is § 25-2-126, MCA, which provides in pertinent part: (1) The proper place of trial for an action against the state is in the county in which the claim arose or in Lewis and Clark County.”

Topco, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Highways, 912 P.2d 805 (Mont. 1996). “However, under § 25-2-126(1), MCA, there is an exception for actions in which the State is a defendant.”

Petersen v. Tucker, 742 P.2d 483 (Mont. 1987). “The statute controlling venue in actions against the state, including the instant case is Section 25-2-126(1), MCA, which provides: “The proper place of trial for an action against the state is in the county in which the claim arose or in Lewis and Clark County.”

Allen v. Atl. Richfield Co., 2005 MT 281 (Mont. 2005). “Plaintiffs relied on § 25-2-126(1), MCA, which allows Montana residents to bring actions against the State in their county of residence.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-126(2) — 4 cases

Wentz v. Montana Power Co., 928 P.2d 237 (Mont. 1996). “Section 25-2-126, MCA, provides in pertinent part: (2) The proper place of trial for an action against a county is that county unless such action is brought by a county, in which case any county not a party thereto is also a proper place of trial.”

Meyer v. Montana Power Co., 2005 MT 66 (Mont. 2005). “¶17 We note that neither subsection of § 25-2-126, MCA, purports to prescribe the sole proper venue for an action in which the State or a political subdivision thereof is a defendant, to the exclusion of all other *288 venue designations under the statutes.”

In Re Lake Cnty.'s Obligation for Operating Costs of Fourth Jud. Dist., 724 P.2d 183 (Mont. 1986).

Chapman v. State, 2002 MT 310N (Mont. 2002).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-126(3) — 6 cases

Gabriel v. Sch. Dist. No. 4, Libby, 870 P.2d 1351 (Mont. 1994). “While the contention is correct, it is not relevant here. The legislature specifically has provided for venue in actions against political subdivisions such as the School District.”

LaTray v. City of Havre, 2000 MT 119 (Mont. 2000). “Although the first trial of this case resulted in a jury verdict for the City, the then-presiding judge ordered a new trial because he concluded that the initial verdict had been tainted by the jury's exposure to media publicity during the trial.”

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.