Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 25. CIVIL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 2. VENUE · Part 2. Change of Venue
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-201 (2026)

When Change Of Venue Required

✓ 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 2
  5. 25-2-201 When change of venue required

TITLE 25. CIVIL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 2. VENUE

Part 2. Change of Venue

When Change Of Venue Required

25-2-201. When change of venue required. The court or judge shall, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases:

(1) when the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county;

(2) when there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the current place of trial;

(3) when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change;

(4) when a party enters a pleading that challenges, as defined in 25-2-127, a statute or session law if the statute or session law was enacted or amended within the legislative biennium, as defined in 25-2-127; and

(5) when a primary bill sponsor intervenes pursuant to 5-2-107 in a declaratory judgment action.

History: En. Sec. 21, p. 46, Bannack Stat.; amd. Ch. 8, L. 3d Session 1866, which was set aside by Act of Congress of March 2, 1867; amd. Sec. 1, p. 68, L. 1867; amd. Sec. 27, p. 31, Cod. Stat. 1871; re-en. Sec. 62, p. 53, L. 1877; re-en. Sec. 62, 1st Div. Rev. Stat. 1879; re-en. Sec. 62, 1st Div. Comp. Stat. 1887; amd. Sec. 615, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; en. Ch. 2, Ex. L. 1903; re-en. Sec. 6506, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9098, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 397; re-en. Sec. 9098, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 6, L. 1973; [(4) superseded by Sup. Ct. Ord., 34 St. Rep. 26, eff. March 1, 1977]; R.C.M. 1947, 93-2906; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 357, L. 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Yarbro, Ltd. v. Missoula Fed. Credit Union, 2002 MT 152 (Mont. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yarbro, Ltd. v. Missoula Fed. Credit Union, 2002 MT 152 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 18× “Section 25-2-201, MCA, states when change of venue is required: The court or judge must, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases: (1) when the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county; (2) when there is reason to believe that an impartial…”
Modroo v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins., 2008 MT 275 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 8× “¶ 69 Nationwide responds that the District Court properly dismissed the negligence claim under the forum non conveniens doctrine because the insurance contract is an Ohio contract, the agents who sold the policy reside in Ohio, and most of the allegedly negligent acts occurred…”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Health & Env't Sciences v. Pegasus Gold Corp., 889 P.2d 1197 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 19× “Did the District Court err in denying ZMI’s § 25-2-201(1), MCA, motion for a change of venue? The District Court denied ZMI’s § 25-2-201(1), MCA, motion which contended that Lewis and Clark County was not a “proper county.”
In re R.J.F., 443 P.3d 387 (Mont. 2019). · cites it 5× “On January 11, 2017, Mother filed a petition to transfer venue pursuant to § 25-2-201(3), MCA, to Williams County, North Dakota where she resided.”
Mannix v. Butte Water Co., 854 P.2d 834 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 22× “Section 25-2-201, MCA, the statute governing change of venue provides in pertinent part: When change of venue required.”
LaTray v. City of Havre, 2000 MT 119 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 10× “¶ 36 Under § 25-2-201, MCA, a change of venue is required "when there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had" in the current venue.”
Davis v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 937 P.2d 27 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 8× “Section 25-2-201, MCA. Absent such a showing, the law assumes that any one or all four of the venues will provide a forum where the laws will be equally administered.”
Haug v. Burlington N. R.R., 770 P.2d 517 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 10× “If a plaintiff does not designate a proper county in the complaint, § 25-2-201, MCA, requires that the court must, on motion, *372 change the place of trial.”
State ex rel. Burlington N. R.R. v. Dist. Court of the Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 891 P.2d 493 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 10× “Determining that our “foregoing case analysis under the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies equally to the provisions allowing a court to change the place of trial in § 25-2-201, MCA,” we then held that “in FELA cases neither the doctrine of forum non conveniens, nor the…”
Rule v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 2005 MT 6 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 13× “Subsections (a), (b) and (c), respectively, of § 25-2-122(2), MCA, provide that the proper place of trial for a tort action against a corporation incorporated in a state other than Montana is the county in which the tort was committed, the county in which the plaintiff resides…”
Bnsf Ry. Co. v. State, Dept. of Env. Qual., 2010 MT 46 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 52× “In support of its motion to change venue, DEQ argued that Flathead County was not the proper county under § 25-1-126(1), MCA, and § 2-4-702(2)(a), MCA, and that the District Court should therefore transfer the case to Lewis and Clark County under § 25-2-201(1), MCA. DEQ further…”
Weaver v. State, 2013 MT 247 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 5× “Analysis ¶46 Section 25-2-201, MCA, provides in relevant part that “[t]he court or judge must, on motion, change the place of trial” when ‘there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein,” or “when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice…”
Show all 66 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-201(1) — 19 cases
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Health & Env't Sciences v. Pegasus Gold Corp., 889 P.2d 1197 (Mont. 1995). “Did the District Court err in denying ZMI’s § 25-2-201(1), MCA, motion for a change of venue? The District Court denied ZMI’s § 25-2-201(1), MCA, motion which contended that Lewis and Clark County was not a “proper county.”
Rule v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 2005 MT 6 (Mont. 2005). “Subsections (a), (b) and (c), respectively, of § 25-2-122(2), MCA, provide that the proper place of trial for a tort action against a corporation incorporated in a state other than Montana is the county in which the tort was committed, the county in which the plaintiff resides…”
Lockhead v. Weinstein, 2001 MT 132 (Mont. 2001).
Barthule v. Karman, 886 P.2d 971 (Mont. 1994).
Bnsf Ry. Co. v. State, Dept. of Env. Qual., 2010 MT 46 (Mont. 2010). “In support of its motion to change venue, DEQ argued that Flathead County was not the proper county under § 25-1-126(1), MCA, and § 2-4-702(2)(a), MCA, and that the District Court should therefore transfer the case to Lewis and Clark County under § 25-2-201(1), MCA. DEQ further…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-201(2) — 11 cases
LaTray v. City of Havre, 2000 MT 119 (Mont. 2000). “¶ 36 Under § 25-2-201, MCA, a change of venue is required "when there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had" in the current venue.”
Yarbro, Ltd. v. Missoula Fed. Credit Union, 2002 MT 152 (Mont. 2002). “Section 25-2-201, MCA, states when change of venue is required: The court or judge must, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases: (1) when the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county; (2) when there is reason to believe that an impartial…”
Weaver v. State, 2013 MT 247 (Mont. 2013). “Analysis ¶46 Section 25-2-201, MCA, provides in relevant part that “[t]he court or judge must, on motion, change the place of trial” when ‘there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein,” or “when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice…”
State ex rel. Burlington N. R.R. v. Dist. Court of the Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 891 P.2d 493 (Mont. 1995). “Determining that our “foregoing case analysis under the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies equally to the provisions allowing a court to change the place of trial in § 25-2-201, MCA,” we then held that “in FELA cases neither the doctrine of forum non conveniens, nor the…”
Keith v. Liberty Cnty. Hosp. & Nursing Home, 598 P.2d 203 (Mont. 1979).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-201(3) — 22 cases
In re R.J.F., 443 P.3d 387 (Mont. 2019). “On January 11, 2017, Mother filed a petition to transfer venue pursuant to § 25-2-201(3), MCA, to Williams County, North Dakota where she resided.”
Bnsf Ry. Co. v. State, Dept. of Env. Qual., 2010 MT 46 (Mont. 2010). “In support of its motion to change venue, DEQ argued that Flathead County was not the proper county under § 25-1-126(1), MCA, and § 2-4-702(2)(a), MCA, and that the District Court should therefore transfer the case to Lewis and Clark County under § 25-2-201(1), MCA. DEQ further…”
San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Ninth Jud. Dist. Court, 2014 MT 191 (Mont. 2014).
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Health & Env't Sciences v. Pegasus Gold Corp., 889 P.2d 1197 (Mont. 1995). “Did the District Court err in denying ZMI’s § 25-2-201(1), MCA, motion for a change of venue? The District Court denied ZMI’s § 25-2-201(1), MCA, motion which contended that Lewis and Clark County was not a “proper county.”
Nutter v. Permian Corp., 727 P.2d 1338 (Mont. 1986).
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.