Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-202 (2026)

Questions Of Fact

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 26. EVIDENCE

CHAPTER 1. STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON EVIDENCE

Part 2. Province of Court and Jury

Questions Of Fact

26-1-202. Questions of fact. If a trial is by jury, all questions of fact other than those mentioned in 26-1-201 must be decided by the jury, and all evidence thereon must be addressed to them, except as otherwise provided by law. If the trial of a question of fact is not by jury, all evidence thereon must be addressed to the trial court, which shall decide such question.

History: En. Sec. 3440, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 8054, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 10698, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 2101; re-en. Sec. 10698, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 93-2501-1; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 72, L. 1983.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: Weinberg v. Farmers State Bank of Worden, 752 P.2d 719 (Mont. 1988).
Weinberg v. Farmers State Bank of Worden, 752 P.2d 719 (Mont. 1988). · cites it 5× “2d 434, 436 ; § 26-1-202, MCA. Rock Springs Corp., supra.”
Wadsworth v. State, 911 P.2d 1165 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 4× “As pointed out by the majority, § 26-1-202, MCA, provides as follows: If a trial is by jury, all questions of fact other than those mentioned in 26-1-201 must be decided by the jury, and all evidence thereon must be addressed to them, except as otherwise provided by law.”
Buhmann v. State, 2008 MT 465, 201 P.3d 70. · cites it 4× “¶ 58 Under § 26-1-201, MCA, "all questions of law" are to be decided by the court, while questions of fact go to the jury pursuant to § 26-1-202, MCA. While takings claims arguably present "mixed questions of fact and law," see Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.”
First Bank (N.A.) — Billings v. Clark, 771 P.2d 84 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 3× “JURY INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT DAMAGES Appellant contends that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to warrant a jury instruction on loss of income, damage to reputation, or emotional distress.”
Cooper v. Rosston, 756 P.2d 1125 (Mont. 1988). · cites it 3× “Section 26-1-202, MCA. The excluded evidence was, therefore, relevant to the issue of punitive damages.”
Stenberg v. Neel, 613 P.2d 1007 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 3× “Section 26-1-202, MCA, states that questions of fact are to be decided by the jury, where the trial is by jury.”
State v. DeVore, 1998 MT 340, 972 P.2d 816. · cites it 2× “It follows that where there are no disputed issues of fact, the jury, and therefore the potential influence of its individual constituents, “biased” or not, is inconsequential to the final outcome of the case.”
Kostelecky v. Peas in a Pod, 2022 MT 195, 518 P.3d 840. “Sections 26-1-202, -302(4), (7), and -303(3), MCA.”
Calder v. Anderson, 911 P.2d 1157 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 4× “The majority opinion simply recognizes that pursuant to Article II, Section 26, of the Montana Constitution, and § 26-1-202, MCA, there is a right to have issues of fact tried by juries when the parties request a jury, or by the district court when the right to jury trial is…”
Maurer v. Clausen Distrib. Co., 912 P.2d 195 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 2× “See § 26-1-202, MCA. The defendants intended to introduce evidence of the Miller incident during cross-examination of Maurer and his witnesses in order to rebut evidence that Maurer was depressed as a result of his injury.”
State v. Shaver, 760 P.2d 1230 (Mont. 1988). “Sections 26-1-202, and 26-1-203, MCA. The District Court found that Shaver had not requested an attorney and had voluntarily waived his rights.”
Finstad v. Montana Power Co., 785 P.2d 1372 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 4× “SHEEHY, Justice, dissenting: Nothing is more clearly established in Montana law, that when a trial is by jury, all questions of fact are to be decided by the jury, and all evidence thereon is addressed to them, § 25-7-103, MCA; § 26-1-202, MCA; and that the jury is the judge of…”
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.